Northern Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Creighton
830 N.W.2d 556
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Gundersons leased their minerals to Holt in 2004; Holt later assigned most rights to Murex and others; Gundersons’ lease was recorded in 2004 and assignment recorded in 2005.
- In 2007, Creighton’s agent Bradshaw learned Gundersons owned unleased minerals and, on November 25, 2007, Gundersons leased to Creighton; the Creighton lease was recorded January 30, 2008.
- Holt recorded an affidavit in December 2007 claiming a mistake in the Holt lease’s description; Holt asserted Gundersons owned no interest in the disputed section.
- Creighton later assigned his Creighton/Gunderson lease to Antares Exploration Fund, L.P., which then assigned to Northern in 2008.
- Northern sued in 2009 to quiet title and sought reformation of Holt’s lease; Murex sought third-party and cross claims related to the same property.
- The district court denied summary judgment; it ruled Creighton was not a good faith purchaser due to constructive notice from Holt’s affidavit, and reformation was determined by stipulation as to mutual mistake.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Creighton a good faith purchaser without notice? | Northern asserts Creighton was a bona fide purchaser for value. | Murex argues Creighton had notice via Holt affidavit and therefore not a good faith purchaser. | Fact issue; remand to resolve notice and good faith status. |
| Did Holt’s affidavit create constructive notice before Creighton’s acquisition? | Northern contends the affidavit gave notice to all via recording. | Murex argues the timing and inferences do not establish constructive notice against Creighton. | Not decided on summary judgment; factual dispute exists. |
| Should reformation be permitted if it would prejudice a good faith purchaser for value? | Northern contends reformation could prejudice Creighton if he was a good faith purchaser. | Murex contends reformation is proper regardless of Creighton’s status. | Remanded for factual development; not finally decided. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smetana v. Farmers Union Oil Co. of Garrison, 2009 ND 74 (ND 2009) (good faith purchaser without notice standard; fact-intensive)
- Diocese of Bismarck Trust v. Ramada, Inc., 553 N.W.2d 760 (ND 1996) (constructive notice and inquiry standards)
- Riedlinger v. Steam Bros., Inc., 2013 ND 14 (ND 2013) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Ehlen v. Melvin, 2012 ND 246 (ND 2012) (contract formation; enforceability timing)
- Burris Carpet Plus, Inc. v. Burris, 2010 ND 118 (ND 2010) (summary judgment standard; disputes over inferences)
- Farmers Union Oil Co. of Garrison v. Smetana, 2009 ND 74 (ND 2009) (good faith purchaser without notice; context for notice analysis)