910 N.W.2d 171
N.D.2018Background
- In 1973 Julia Alvstad deeded farmland in Williams County to her three sons—Leif, Alf, and Roald Mattson—as joint tenants with right of survivorship; they operated RAL Farm together and shared income/expenses.
- Leif died in 2001; his children received one-third rental payments thereafter and later (2010) quitclaimed a one‑third surface interest (reserving mineral rights) to Steven Mattson.
- Alf conveyed his one‑third interest to nephew Steven in 2003; Steven later placed his claimed interests into the Steven R. Mattson Living Trust (2012) and Roald placed his into the Roald F. Mattson Living Trust (2013).
- After a title review, Steven notified Leif’s heirs they were being paid mineral rents they did not own; litigation followed. The district court quieted title in the two Trusts, awarded Steven damages for amounts he paid Leif’s heirs for the surface interest (unjust enrichment), and awarded the Trusts damages for oil & gas lease payments (unjust enrichment and conversion).
- On appeal the court affirmed quiet title and the conversion award to the Trusts, but reversed the award to Steven for purchase-price recovery, holding unjust enrichment unavailable and the voluntary payment doctrine barred recovery under the quitclaim deed/mutual mistake of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did conveyance/use of the Property for RAL Farm sever the joint tenancy before Leif’s death? | Appellants: property was partnership property; joint tenancy was severed. | Mattsons: property remained joint-tenanted realty; not transferred to partnership. | Court: joint tenancy was not severed; title quieted in the Trusts. |
| Was the 2010 quitclaim purchase price paid by Steven recoverable (unjust enrichment / restitution)? | Mattsons: payment was mistaken and recoverable; unjust enrichment or implied promise to repay. | Appellants: quitclaim limited warranty; voluntary mutual mistake of law bars recovery. | Court: reversed recovery to Steven—unjust enrichment unavailable and voluntary payment doctrine bars restitution. |
| Could the Trusts recover oil & gas lease payments received by Appellants? | Mattsons: Appellants were unjustly enriched and committed conversion by retaining mineral proceeds. | Appellants: voluntary payment doctrine or other defenses bar recovery. | Court: affirmed damages to Trusts for lease payments under conversion (no bar from voluntary payment doctrine). |
| Is conversion a proper remedy where lessees paid Appellants who lacked title? | Mattsons: yes—Appellants wrongfully exercised dominion over funds belonging to Trusts. | Appellants: payments were received legitimately absent earlier title dispute. | Court: conversion found; demand and refusal satisfied; damages allowed to Trusts. |
Key Cases Cited
- SPW Associates, LLP v. Anderson, 718 N.W.2d 580 (N.D. 2006) (joint venture treated like partnership; partnership law applies to ownership issues)
- Renz v. Renz, 256 N.W.2d 883 (N.D. 1977) (severance of joint tenancy may be by alienation)
- Eckert v. Eckert, 425 N.W.2d 914 (N.D. 1988) (determination whether property is partnership or individual depends on partners' intent)
- First Nat'l Bank of Belfield v. Burich, 367 N.W.2d 148 (N.D. 1985) (unjust enrichment unavailable where express contract exists; correct result may be affirmed on alternate legal theory)
- Jacobson v. Mohall Telephone Co., 157 N.W. 1033 (N.D. 1916) (mutual mistake of law does not permit recovery of voluntarily paid money)