Rolla v. Tank
2013 ND 175
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Decedent George Tank owned McKenzie County property and executed two nearly identical quitclaim deeds (Dec. 2007 and Mar. 2008) conveying property to son Greggory Tank; deeds were captioned “(Life Estate Reserved).”
- The deeds contained two reservation paragraphs: (1) reserved “all oil, gas and other minerals now owned by Grantor, including coal…together with the right of ingress and egress…” and treated sand, gravel, and clay as surface; (2) began “FURTHER EXCEPTING and RESERVING” and reserved to Grantor “the full use, control, income and possession of the described property…for and during Grantor’s natural life,” including rights to lease and receive bonuses, rentals and royalties.
- After George’s death (June 2008), ConocoPhillips stopped making mineral payments believing Greggory owned the minerals; Rolla (personal representative) sued to quiet title to the minerals in the estate.
- Rolla argued the deeds reserved the minerals to George (and his successors) and the life estate applied only to the surface; Greggory argued the life estate applied to both minerals and surface, so he was remainderman in the minerals.
- District court found deeds ambiguous, held a bench trial, and found from extrinsic evidence (attorney and accountant testimony, a codicil and gift tax return) that George intended to reserve minerals for other children and only reserved a life estate in the surface; quieted title to the minerals in Rolla.
- Greggory appealed; Supreme Court reviewed deed interpretation de novo (ambiguity question) and factual findings for clear error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rolla) | Defendant's Argument (Greggory) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the quitclaim deeds reserved minerals to George (and successors) or reserved only a life estate in minerals | Deeds reserved minerals to George (and successors) outright; life estate language applies only to surface | Caption “(Life Estate Reserved)” and life-estate paragraph show George reserved only a life estate in minerals and surface, with remainder to Greggory | Deeds unambiguously reserved minerals to George (and successors) and reserved only a life estate in the surface; judgment affirmed |
| Whether the deeds were ambiguous such that extrinsic evidence could be considered | If ambiguous, extrinsic evidence supports Rolla’s interpretation | If ambiguous, deeds still show life estate in minerals in favor of George | Court held deeds are unambiguous; alternatively, even if ambiguous, district court’s factual findings based on extrinsic evidence were not clearly erroneous |
| Proper role of deed captions and specific vs. general provisions in deed interpretation | Specific reservation of minerals controls over caption or general life-estate caption | Caption “(Life Estate Reserved)” supports broader life-estate reservation | Caption is subordinate to clear specific reservations; specific mineral reservation governs |
| Application of contra proferentem or rules favoring grantee when language uncertain | Those rules are last-resort and unnecessary here because deed language and extrinsic evidence resolve intent | Same argument relied on by Greggory | Court declined to apply those rules because other interpretive tools resolved intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Nichols v. Goughnour, 820 N.W.2d 740 (N.D. 2012) (rules on deed construction and contract principles)
- Gawryluk v. Poynter, 654 N.W.2d 400 (N.D. 2002) (when deed language is plain, extrinsic evidence inadmissible; ambiguity allows extrinsic evidence)
- Mueller v. Stangeland, 340 N.W.2d 450 (N.D. 1983) (primary purpose in construing a deed is to ascertain grantor’s intent)
- Valley Honey Co., LLC v. Graves, 666 N.W.2d 453 (N.D. 2003) (construe deed to give effect to every clause)
- Clark v. CSX Transp., Inc., 737 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (captions have no effect where conveyance is clear)
- Kortum v. Johnson, 755 N.W.2d 432 (N.D. 2008) (specific contract provisions qualify general provisions)
- Royse v. Easter Seal Soc’y for Crippled Children and Adults, Inc., 256 N.W.2d 542 (N.D. 1977) (court will not strain to find ambiguity where none appears)
- Brigham Oil & Gas, L.P. v. Lario Oil & Gas Co., 801 N.W.2d 677 (N.D. 2011) (standard for reviewing factual findings in oil and gas disputes)