Nuveen v. Nuveen
2012 ND 182
| N.D. | 2012Background
- This is a North Dakota Supreme Court decision affirming a summary-judgment quiet title ruling in favor of Rosalie Veeder regarding minerals under a quarter-section in McKenzie County.
- In 1970, the Georges deeded land to Sidney and LeRoy Veeder and reserved an undivided 100% interest in oil, gas, and ‘other minerals’ but did not expressly reserve gravel, clay, or scoria.
- The deed language reserved egress/ingress for mining oil, gas and other minerals but omitted gravel, clay, and scoria.
- In 2010 the Georges asserted an interest in scoria; in 2011 they filed suit to quiet title to scoria and Veeder counterclaimed to quiet title in her favor.
- Veeder moved for summary judgment; Georges sought to amend to request reformation of the deed; the district court granted the motion and denied the amendment.
- The Supreme Court held the term ‘minerals’ is not ambiguous and does not include gravel, clay, or scoria; the amendment to seek reformation was futile and properly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the reservation of 'minerals' include gravel, clay, or scoria? | Georges argue the reservation includes scoria. | Veeder contends 'minerals' does not include gravel, clay, or scoria. | Reservation excludes gravel, clay, scoria; Veeder wins. |
| Was the motion to amend for reformation properly denied as futile? | Georges seek reformation to reflect intended reservation of scoria. | Veeder opposes amendment; asserts lack of substantial evidence. | denial proper; amendment would be futile; no clear and convincing evidence of mutual intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hovden v. Lind, 301 N.W.2d 374 (N.D. 1981) (minerals reservation not ambiguous; gravel/clay/scoria excluded from 'minerals')
- Arndt v. Maki, 2012 ND 55 (N.D. 2012) (clear and convincing standard for reformation; parol evidence admissible for fraud or mutual mistake)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 2011 ND 64 (N.D. 2011) (reformation burden; amendment futility standard; substantial evidence needed)
- Spitzer v. Bartelson, 2009 ND 179 (N.D. 2009) (reformation high standard; certainty of error required)
- Salzseider v. Brunsdale, 94 N.W.2d 502 (N.D. 1959) (earlier precedent that 'minerals' does not include gravel)
- Amann v. Frederick, 257 N.W.2d 436 (N.D. 1977) (objective meaning governs where term is capable of clear meaning)