Motter v. Traill Rural Water District
2017 ND 267
| N.D. | 2017Background
- In 2006 Melba Motter (via conservator) leased ~40 acres to Traill Rural Water District (TRWD) for 99 years at $250/acre/year “upon development of the water wells” with a $250/parcel option payment until development; TRWD paid the option in 2006.
- TRWD developed four well sites in 2010 that occupy about 2 of the 40 acres.
- Daniel and Marlene Motter acquired title in 2011 and later claimed TRWD owed rent at $250 per acre for the full 40 acres for years 2011–2015, resulting in competing damage calculations.
- At a 2015 bench trial the court found TRWD proved mutual mistake and reformed the leases (initially awarding rent for full 40 acres for some years, then switching to a per-well basis after 2014).
- The Motters moved for a new trial asserting surprise because TRWD first pressed the specific reformation/per-well theory in its post-trial brief; the district court granted a new trial.
- At the 2016 retrial the district court denied reformation, concluded the leases unambiguously required $250 per acre, and entered judgment for the Motters for $51,500 plus prejudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Motter) | Defendant's Argument (TRWD) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting a new trial under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(b) | Motters argued they were surprised by TRWD’s reformation/per-well theory raised post-trial and thus entitled to a new trial | TRWD argued Motters should have sought a continuance or supplementation earlier and were not prejudiced | New trial was properly granted; court did not abuse discretion because the decisive reformation theory arose only in post-trial briefing and caused surprise |
| Whether the leases should be reformed for mutual mistake under N.D.C.C. § 32-04-17 | Motters argued the written leases as drafted reflected the parties’ intent: $250 per acre | TRWD argued clear and convincing evidence showed mutual mistake and intent was per-well/site, not the entire 40 acres | Court held TRWD failed to prove mutual mistake by clear and convincing evidence; leases interpreted as $250 per acre |
| Standard of review for bench trial factual findings | Motters relied on district court’s factual findings after retrial | TRWD argued the court ignored its witnesses and misweighed evidence | Appellate standard: clearly erroneous for facts; appellate court affirmed that the district court’s weighing was permissible and not clearly erroneous |
| Proper construction of the lease language | Motters: language is unambiguous and commercially negotiated, reflecting per-acre payment | TRWD: negotiation history and alternative drafts show parties intended per-well payments | Court interpreted the contract to give effect to mutual intent and found language clear and unambiguous for per-acre payment |
Key Cases Cited
- Lange v. Cusey, 379 N.W.2d 775 (N.D. 1985) (standard that granting a new trial is within trial court discretion)
- Okken v. Okken, 325 N.W.2d 264 (N.D. 1982) (discussing stronger showing required to overturn grant of new trial)
- Ceartin v. Ochs, 516 N.W.2d 651 (N.D. 1994) (new-trial orders are rarely reversed)
- Bohn v. Eichhorst, 181 N.W.2d 771 (N.D. 1970) (surprise that ordinary prudence could not guard against may justify relief)
- Hamre v. Senger, 79 N.W.2d 41 (N.D. 1956) (motion for continuance vs. new-trial/surprise)
- Freidig v. Weed, 868 N.W.2d 546 (N.D. 2015) (reformation is fact question; clear and convincing proof required)
- Johnson v. Hovland, 795 N.W.2d 294 (N.D. 2011) (high remedy of reformation requires certainty of error)
- Fredericks v. Fredericks, 888 N.W.2d 177 (N.D. 2016) (deeds/contracts construed to effect mutual intent; reformation standards)