10 N.W.3d 578
N.D.2024Background
- Witzig’s Fifth Addition in Stutsman County, ND, was platted into three lots in 2014, with certain streets depicted but not formally dedicated in the plat or new description.
- Diane Witzig deeded all three lots to Gannon Van Gilder and Levi Hintz in 2018; subsequent conveyances were made in 2021.
- In 2022, Diane Witzig provided a quitclaim deed to Nordquist for land described as the north 60 feet less the east 33 feet of Witzig’s Fifth Subdivision (depicted as 6th Street SW), described via metes and bounds.
- The County Recorder refused to record the deed, and the Auditor would not issue a certificate of transfer, citing the deed’s description did not match any existing tract or parcel and was inconsistent with the tract index system.
- Nordquist petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel recording and issuance of the transfer certificate, which the district court denied.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the petition, but reversed the district court's determination regarding what the prior deeds conveyed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the quitclaim deed changed the current property description | The deed did not change the property description | The deed used a new, unrecognized description (metes and bounds) not previously used/recorded | The deed changed the property description; could not be recorded without auditor's certificate |
| Whether the Recorder must record the deed without the Auditor’s certificate | Recording is ministerial and Recorder must record | The law requires auditor’s certificate if the property description has changed | Recorder cannot record deed without auditor’s certificate |
| Whether the Auditor must issue a certificate of transfer statement | Auditor should certify transfer if taxes are current | No tract exists for newly described land, so taxes and ownership are unclear | Auditor not required to issue a certificate without tract identification; replatting may be required |
| Whether the district court properly determined what land prior deeds conveyed | Court’s determination was unnecessary and improper | Supported the district court's findings as clarifying title | District court's determination was an abuse of discretion; reversed on that point |
Key Cases Cited
- Capps v. Weflen, 855 N.W.2d 637 (N.D. 2014) (recording documents is a ministerial duty and does not constitute adjudication of property rights)
- Loran v. Iszler, 373 N.W.2d 870 (N.D. 1985) (recorder’s act of recording is ministerial)
- Swanson v. Swanson, 796 N.W.2d 614 (N.D. 2011) (tract index system protects title clarity and public notice)
- Dennison v. N.D. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 640 N.W.2d 447 (N.D. 2002) (quiet title actions decide the nature and extent of property interests)