State v. Ramirez, 2012 ND 51

This is a family dispute over mineral rights on the Arndt family farm in Mountrail County, with Maki siblings and others opposing Arndt family members who claim the minerals.
The farm was sold to Richard Arndt in 1973 via a contract for deed; the contract did not reserve minerals.
Marie Arndt died intestate in 1975; Marie’s heirs and Richard’s siblings later acted as co-personal representatives of the estates.
A 1984 personal representative’s deed conveyed the farm to Richard Arndt without mineral reservation.
In 2007, co-personal representatives conveyed the minerals to all living heirs; claims of mineral ownership were subsequently asserted by the Maki defendants.
Arndt plaintiffs filed a quiet title action in 2008 and sought attorney fees under N.D.C.C. § 47-19.1-09 for slandering title; the district court granted summary judgment dismissing the reformation claim and the slander claim was argued but partially triaged on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reformation of the 1973 contract and 1984 deed was proper	Maki contends fraud or mutual mistake entitles reformation.	Arndt plaintiffs contend no mutual mistake; documents unambiguous.	Reformation claim dismissed; no genuine issue.
Whether the waivers of inheritance were properly raised and decided	Maki argues waivers should be rescinded for fraud in inception.	Arndt asserts waivers not properly raised or in record; not decided.	Not addressed on appeal; issue not decided.
Whether the 1984 deed and 2007 distribution properly reflect ownership and quiet title	Maki argues minerals were intended to be owned by all heirs.	Arndt contends the documents align with Richard Arndt’s version of facts.	Court quieted title in Arndt plaintiffs; no reversal on this point.
Whether the slander of title claim and related attorney fees should be awarded	Arndt cross-appellants claim evidence supports fees for slandering title under § 47-19.1-09.	Maki argues no slander or improper recording to harass title.	Summary judgment reversed; issue remanded for evidentiary proceedings on fees.

Johnson v. Hovland, 2011 ND 64 (ND 2011) (clear and convincing standard for reformation; mutual mistake requires certainty of error)
Goetzfried, 2005 ND 149 (ND 2005) (warranty deed conformity to one version of facts can sustain summary judgment on reformation)
Spitzer v. Bartelson, 2009 ND 179 (ND 2009) (high proof required for reformation when death or silence limits testimony)
Wehner v. Schroeder, 354 N.W.2d 674 (ND 1984) (reformation based on mutual mistake when instruments reflect inconsistent intentions)
Saltsman v. Sharp, 2011 ND 172 (ND 2011) (summary judgment standard and consideration of evidentiary sufficiency)