Silliman v. All American Biodiesel, Inc.
2011 ND 54
| N.D. | 2011Background
- 1976 mineral deed conveyed 50% of the property’s minerals to Bertha Hovland (then married to Lambert Hovland).
- March 25, 1976 re-recorded deed added life-estate/remainder language to Bertha’s interest; re-recorded deed lacked proper signing/acknowledgment.
- Liebls are Bertha’s children/grandchildren; under the re-recorded deed they received remainder interests.
- Bertha Hovland died intestate in 1978; Lambert Hovland died in 1983; neither probate proceedings addressed the mineral interest.
- Liebls executed ratifications/stipulations/leases over 1990–2007 asserting ownership of 50% mineral interest.
- Liebls filed 2008 quiet-title action; district court granted summary judgment to Hovlands and denied Liebls’ motion to amend for reformation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Liebls may amend to plead reformation | Liebls argue amendment should be allowed to pursue reformation. | Hovlands contend amendment would be futile or time-barred. | Amendment denied on futility grounds. |
| Validity and effect of the 1976 re-recorded deed as a correction deed | Liebls rely on correction/deemed life-estate intent. | Re-recorded deed is invalid; cannot effect correction. | Re-recorded deed void; correction/deed not valid to effect intended transfer. |
| Accrual and statute of limitations for reformation claim | Liebls contend accrual deferred; not until 2007. | Accrual occurred as early as 1976; statute expired. | Court did not need decide accrual date; in any event, record insufficient for reformation. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support reformation | Schulte affidavit purported mutual intent to create life estate for Bertha. | Affidavit inadequate; fails to prove mutual intent by clear and convincing evidence. | Liebls failed to present substantial evidence to support reformation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spitzer v. Bartelson, 2009 ND 179 (ND) (requires clear and convincing evidence for reformation; equity allowed when justified)
- Ell v. Ell, 295 N.W.2d 143 (ND 1980) (reformation based on mutual mistake; parol evidence admissible)
- Heart River Partners v. Goetzfried, 2005 ND 149 (ND) (extrinsic evidence admissible to show party intent in reformation)
- City of Fargo v. D.T.L. Properties, Inc., 1997 ND 109 (ND) (parol evidence and surrounding circumstances considered)
- Mau v. Schwan, 460 N.W.2d 131 (ND 1990) (evidence standards in reformation actions)
- Ives v. Hanson, 66 N.W.2d 802 (ND) (allowance of evidence to prove intent in contract matters)
- Wehner v. Schroeder, 335 N.W.2d 563 (ND 1983) (accrual of cause of action for statute of limitations in some contexts)
- Gallups v. Kent, 953 So.2d 393 (Ala. 2006) (illustrative correction/deed principles (non-ND authority))