State v. Flah
2013 ND 22
| N.D. | 2013Background
- On May 4, 2007, Barretts contracted Gilbertson to build a house and convey property; blueprinted design required erection per approved plans.
- Final Settlement Offer in October 2007 reduced the price prior to closing, which occurred on October 8, 2007.
- Barretts sued Gilbertson in July 2010 alleging breach of contract for nonconforming below-grade space and laundry room dimensions and sought damages over $40,000; Gilbertson counterclaimed for defamation and emotional distress, later dismissed.
- District court dismissed Barretts’ breach claims, finding no contract breach, settlement precluded post-closing claims, and damages evidence insufficient; both sides sought attorney’s fees, which the court denied.
- Barretts argue nonconformity to blueprints and failure to fix defects, while Gilbertson argues settlement extinguished many claims and repairs were prevented by Barretts.
- This Court affirms, holding no breach of contract proven and that the settlement disposed of related construction claims; attorney’s fees denial affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Gilbertson breach the contract for the below-grade space? | Barretts contend the below-grade space did not conform to blueprints (full-depth basement). | Contract and parol evidence show mutual understanding; no breach since design accommodated Barretts’ requests. | No breach proven; settlement and evidence support no breach. |
| Did the settlement before closing extinguish Barretts’ claims about the basement and laundry room? | Settlement did not fully resolve construction dimensions claims. | Settlement resolved all disputed construction terms; claims extinguished. | Settlement disposed of the construction claims. |
| Did Gilbertson breach the warranty to repair defects within 12 months of closing? | Defects required repair under warranty; Gilbertson failed to fix. | Barretts prevented access to perform repairs; many issues were cosmetic or environmental. | Defects claim not sustained; Barretts prevented performance, excusing nonperformance. |
Key Cases Cited
- WFND, LLC v. Fargo Marc, LLC, 2007 ND 67 ((N.D. 2007)) (breach requires contract, breach, and damages; fact-finding reviewed for clear error)
- Langer v. Bartholomay, 2008 ND 40 ((N.D. 2008)) (contract interpretation and parol evidence rules; ambiguous terms may require extrinsic evidence)
- Delzer v. United Bank of Bismarck, 459 N.W.2d 752 ((N.D. 1990)) (separate oral stipulations may supplement written contracts)
- Kuperus v. Willson, 2006 ND 12 ((N.D. 2006)) (settlements can function as final and conclusive dispositions of disputes)
- Vandal v. Peavey Co., 523 N.W.2d 266 ((N.D. 1994)) (settlement of controversies viewed with executive finality; contract-like effect)
- Barnes v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., 601 N.W.2d 587 ((N.D. 1999)) (prevention or nonperformance as defense to breach)
- Deacon’s Development, LLP v. Lamb, 719 N.W.2d 379 ((N.D. 2006)) (frivolous claims standard and fee shifting analysis)