871 N.W.2d 608
N.D.2015Background
- In 2012 Sargent County Water Resource District sued for a declaratory judgment claiming ownership/control of land south of the north boundary of Drain 11, based on 1917 and 1918 right‑of‑way deeds recorded by the county Board of Drain Commissioners.
- Paul Mathews (and Nancy Mathews) challenged the District’s control; Paul asserted a property interest via a rental arrangement with the purported owners.
- At bench trial the district court found the 1917 and 1918 deeds ambiguous and admitted extrinsic/parol evidence, concluding the deeds conveyed fee simple title to the County’s predecessor.
- The Mathews appealed, arguing the deeds’ plain language unambiguously conveyed only easements (rights of way), and that the district court’s factual findings on parol evidence were clearly erroneous if ambiguity existed.
- The deeds are captioned “right of way” and contain a granting clause: “grant, sell and convey, and forever release to the people of the County of Sargent... right of way for the laying out, construction and maintenance of a public drain...,” and include a release of claims for damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1917/1918 right‑of‑way deeds conveyed a fee simple estate or an easement | Mathews: Deeds unambiguously grant a “right of way” limited to laying out, constructing, maintaining a drain — therefore an easement | District: Deeds ambiguous; extrinsic evidence shows intent to convey fee simple | Held: Deeds unambiguous; language grants an easement (right of way) limited to drain purposes |
| If deeds ambiguous, whether district court’s parol‑evidence findings were legally/ factually correct | Mathews: Parol evidence not supportive; district court erred (and its factual findings re tax practice and comparable sales faulty) | District: Parol evidence supports fee conveyance; court’s findings reasonable | Held: Court did not reach (parol evidence) because deeds were not ambiguous; lower court erred as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- EOG Res., Inc. v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 2015 ND 187, 867 N.W.2d 308 (explains deed construction rules and when parol evidence may be used)
- Waldock v. Amber Harvest Corp., 2012 ND 180, 820 N.W.2d 755 (specific granting clause controls interests conveyed)
- Bockelman v. MCI Worldcom, Inc., 403 F.3d 528 (strip/parcel language generally indicates fee; ‘‘right’’ or ‘‘right of way’’ indicates easement)
- Riverwood Commercial Park, LLC v. Standard Oil Co., Inc., 2005 ND 118, 698 N.W.2d 478 (easements grant limited rights to use/control land for specified purposes)