Sorenson v. Bakken Investments, LLC, 2017 ND 127

In 2010 Craig and Barbara Sorenson sued multiple defendants, including William Everett and others (the "Everett defendants"), to quiet title to certain McKenzie County mineral interests under the Termination of Mineral Interest Act (N.D.C.C. ch. 38-18.1).
The Everett defendants executed stipulations in the 2010 case disclaiming any financial or ownership interest in the disputed minerals; judgments entered dismissing them with prejudice and stating they had "no claim in the property."
The district court later dismissed the 2010 action as to remaining defendants based on the Sorensons’ purported failure to comply with statutory notice requirements and because the minerals had been "used."
The Sorensons filed a second quiet title action in 2012 over the same minerals and parties. A partial stipulation resolved some defendants’ issues; the Everett defendants moved for summary judgment claiming their 2010 stipulations were mistaken because they lacked counsel and actually owned interests.
The Everett defendants sought relief from the 2010 stipulated judgments under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b); the court denied the Rule 60(b) motion as untimely and not meritorious (and that decision was not appealed).
The district court granted the Sorensons’ cross-motion for summary judgment in the 2012 action, quieted title against the Everett defendants, and the Everett defendants appealed only that judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Everett defendants can relitigate ownership after stipulations and final judgments in 2010	Sorensons: prior stipulated judgments are final and preclusive; defendants disclaimed any interest	Everett: stipulations were made mistakenly without counsel and should not bar them from claiming ownership	Held: Everett defendants are bound by 2010 judgments; collateral estoppel and final-judgment rules bar relitigation
Whether Sorensons failed to prove compliance with N.D.C.C. ch. 38-18.1 such that quiet title was improper	Sorensons: prior judgments and stipulations establish no competing claims; summary judgment appropriate	Everett: Sorensons lacked sufficient evidence of statutory notice and compliance with lapsed-mineral procedures; prior stipulations do not transfer title	Held: Court did not need to decide remaining statutory compliance issues as collateral estoppel resolved Everett defendants’ ability to contest title; summary judgment affirmed as to those defendants

Hamilton v. Woll, 823 N.W.2d 754 (N.D. 2012) (summary judgment standard)
Silbernagel v. Silbernagel, 800 N.W.2d 320 (N.D. 2011) (settlement merged into judgment is enforced as final judgment)
Paulson v. Paulson, 801 N.W.2d 746 (N.D. 2011) (issues not raised below may not be raised on appeal)
Interest of T.H., 812 N.W.2d 373 (N.D. 2012) (parties may not collaterally attack unappealed final decisions)
Dennison v. North Dakota Department of Human Services, 640 N.W.2d 447 (N.D. 2002) (quiet title action authorized to resolve adverse claims)
Nelson v. McAlester Fuel Co., 891 N.W.2d 126 (N.D. 2017) (only a party with an interest in property may challenge quiet title ruling)
Hofsommer v. Hofsommer Excavating, Inc., 488 N.W.2d 380 (N.D. 1992) (parties are bound by final judgments)