Niles v. Eldridge, 828 N.W.2d 521

In 1981, Lester, Johnson, and Langwald agreed to drill an artesian well on Johnson’s land to supply water to three homes, sharing costs and running pipelines to each house.
Lester testified the parties owned an equal interest in the well and paid $3,635.22 each for drilling; pipelines cost not clearly included in that amount.
In 1985, Eldridge (Johnson’s daughter) took possession of the land; Niles and Dragseth later acquired adjacent parcels and paid portions of drilling costs to the others; Niles paid $2,726.22 total and bore the cost of running a pipeline to his house.
Niles compensated the others for drilling as to the original cost; Eldridge believed the money was for land-damage caused by pipelines.
Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment asserting an implied easement over Eldridge’s land; Eldridge argued no writing existed and the arrangement was a license, with proponents alleging part performance removed the Statute of Frauds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an oral agreement created a 1/4 ownership in the well and an easement, and was taken out of the Statute of Frauds by partial performance.	Plaintiffs contend the oral agreement granted ownership and an easement and partial performance cured the Statute of Frauds.	Eldridge argues no valid oral agreement exists and that the relationship is a license, not an easement.	Yes; district court's easement finding supported; partial performance did remove the Statute of Frauds.
Whether the acts constituting partial performance were sufficient to remove the Statute of Frauds and show a real property interest.	Payments, possession, and improvements indicate a contract to convey an interest in land.	No strong evidence the acts pointed unambiguously to an easement rather than a license.	The acts were sufficient to establish partial performance; the contract was effectively performed.
Whether the district court correctly exercised discretion in denying Eldridge's motion to amend to assert a statute of limitations defense.	Amendment should be allowed to raise time-bar defenses.	Court may deny futile amendments; six-year limitation does not apply to declaratory relief before breach.	Amendment would have been futile; no abuse of discretion.

Riverwood Commercial Park, LLC v. Standard Oil Co., Inc., 2005 ND 118 (2005) (defines easement concept and use restrictions)
Riverwood Commercial Park, LLC v. Standard Oil Co., Inc., 2011 ND 95 (2011) (restatement on irrevocability of easements and appurtenances)
Fladeland v. Gudbranson, 2004 ND 118 (2004) (partial performance removes Statute of Frauds when acts point to land interest)
Parceluk v. Knudtson, 139 N.W.2d 864 (N.D.1966) (three acts of partial performance recognized (price, possession, improvements))
Johnson Farms v. McEnroe, 1997 ND 179 (1997) (partial performance elements for real property contracts)
Maguire v. Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc., Cal. 1944 (1944) (preliminary authority on declaratory relief timing not barred by lapse of time)