Nichols v. Goughnour, 820 N.W.2d 740

In 1950 John C. Nichols owned the surface and 1/2 of the minerals in 640 acres in Mountrail County; after deaths, nine siblings each held 1/9 surface and 1/18 minerals.
In June 1955 eight siblings executed warranty deeds transferring their 1/9 surface interests to John Q. Nichols, reserving 25% of minerals and 25% royalties with right to prospect.
On March 2, 1956, the deeds were filed; John Q. Nichols and his wife later executed a quitclaim deed to themselves, excluding three-fourths of all mineral interests.
In 1960 John Q. Nichols’ wife wrote a letter discussing leasing and noting that the family might retain a 1/4 interest in minerals and that one sibling had 1/2 of certain interests; the letter reflects informal expectations but not a formal instrument.
In 2011 the Nichols plaintiffs sued to determine the mineral ownership pieces; the Goughnour defendants argued the eight deeds worked as a single transaction to split minerals so Nichols would own 1/4 and the eight siblings collectively 1/4.
The district court granted summary judgment determining Nichols plaintiffs own 7/18 of the minerals and the Goughnour defendants collectively own 1/9.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the eight warranty deeds form a single transaction	Nichols argues the deeds were part of a single plan to split minerals.	Goughnour claims a single transaction to allocate minerals.	Deeds are separate transactions; not a single contract.
Whether extrinsic evidence can alter the deeds’ meaning	Extrinsic evidence should clarify intent.	Extrinsic evidence not admissible where deeds are unambiguous.	Extrinsic evidence not admissible; the deeds are unambiguous.
Whether the Duhig rule applies to these cotenant transfers	Duhig should constrain the reservation/overconveyance.	Gilbertson controls; Duhig does not apply to cotenants.	Duhig does not apply because the transfers were to cotenants; Gilbertson applicable.
What is the correct mineral-interest allocation	Eight siblings collectively retain 1/4; Nichols obtains rest.	Each deed reserves 1/4 of each grantor’s 1/18 minerals, totaling 1/9 for eight siblings.	Nichols plaintiffs own 7/18; Goughnour collectively 1/9.

Gilbertson v. Charlson, 301 N.W.2d 144 (N.D. 1981) (Duhig not applied when grantors and grantee are cotenants with notice of status of minerals)
Duhig v. Peavey-Moore Lumber Co., 144 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. 1940) (cannot grant and reserve same minerals; estoppel by deed applies)
Gawryluk v. Poynter, 654 N.W.2d 400 (N.D. 2002) (Duhig rule applied/explained in context of mineral conveyances)
Melchior v. Lystad, 786 N.W.2d 8 (N.D. 2010) (Duhig and estoppel by warranty applied to mineral title issues)
Miller v. Kloeckner, 600 N.W.2d 881 (N.D. 1999) (estoppel by deed rationale in mineral transfers)