State v. Gefroh
2011 ND 153
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Testerman’s will devised her share of North Dakota mineral rights to Avery; subsequent California probate in 2005 distributed mineral rights in ND to Avery.
- Avery secured an August 2007 lease with Dublin (ND), which Dublin later assigned to Lario; Navarro later entered a 2008 lease with Triple.
- Navarro and Avery executed November 2008 settlement reallocating Testerman’s ND mineral rights (Avery 100% from Testerman’s paternal line; Navarro 75% from the brother’s line), not disclosed to Brigham or Lario.
- Pando, as personal representative, executed December 2008 deeds distributing Testerman’s ND interests to Avery and Navarro per the 2008 agreement.
- Brigham filed suit in June 2009, seeking a share of production; Lario claimed Dublin lease controlled; district court granted summary judgment for Lario, dismissing Brigham’s claims.
- Navarro died; Thompson and The Triple T sought to intervene and vacate judgment in 2010; motions were denied and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who owned Testerman’s North Dakota mineral rights at death? | Brigham claimed Brigham/others had a vested interest. | Avery had an actual ownership interest immediately upon Testerman’s death. | Avery owned the mineral rights upon Testerman’s death, subject to ancillary administration. |
| Effect of the California final distribution on North Dakota title? | California probate final distribution controlled title transfer. | ND ancillary proceedings were required; California order determinative under USC/UCC rules. | California final distribution controlled, but North Dakota ancillary proceedings were needed to transfer title. |
| Whether the Avery–Navarro settlement bound Brigham or Lario? | Settlement could alter interests impacting Brigham/Lario. | Settlement bound only Avery/Navarro; Brigham/Lario not bound due to lack of notice/parties. | Settlement not binding on Brigham or Lario; deeds of distribution ineffective to alter their interests. |
| Controlling lease and Brigham’s interest in leasehold? | Brigham held an interest via the settlement and earlier agreements. | Dublin lease to Avery (and its assignment to Lario) controls; Brigham has no leasehold interest. | The Dublin lease controlling; Brigham has no interest in the oil and gas leasehold. |
| Whether Thompson and Triple could intervene post-judgment or vacate the judgment? | Intervention timely to protect their interests. | Interventions were untimely, prejudice existing parties, and post-judgment relief inappropriate. | District court did not err in denying intervention and in denying 60(b) relief; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wacker Oil, Inc. v. LoneTree Energy, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 1990) (ancillary probate needed to transfer title in ND)
- Estate of Dionne, 2009 ND 172, 772 N.W.2d 891 (N.D. 2009) (settlements binding among parties; notice requirements)
- Feickert v. Frounfelter, 468 N.W.2d 131 (N.D. 1991) (property devolves by will and administration)
- In re Reynolds’ Will, 85 N.W.2d 553 (N.D. 1957) (ancillary probate considerations)
- Estate of Hedstrom, 472 N.W.2d 454 (N.D. 1991) (probate procedures and settlement impacts)
- Gillmore v. Morelli, 472 N.W.2d 738 (N.D. 1991) (summary judgment standards and de novo review)