State v. Tresenriter
2012 ND 240
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Finlay F. Hamilton acquired 80 mineral acres in Bowman County in 1952 via a mineral deed.
- From 1953 to 1956, Finlay Hamilton issued 15 deeds on preprinted Mineral Deed forms but typed in the word 'Royalty' in the granting clause, purporting to convey undivided royalty interests.
- Warranty clauses were struck out; residence listed as Tulsa, Oklahoma; Hamilton died intestate in 1956 and his estate was probated in Texas.
- In 2010, Finlay Hamilton’s grandchildren and successors sued to quiet title and obtain a declaration that the 15 deeds conveyed royalty rather than mineral interests.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of royalty interests, finding the deeds ambiguous but legally conveying royalty; it relied on Finlay’s experience and subsequent deeds, and noted the contrast with later mineral deeds.
- The court ultimately held the case was not amenable to summary judgment and reversed/remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the 15 deeds ambiguous regarding grantor’s intent? | Rowland argues there are genuine disputes over intent. | Hamilton asserts unambiguous intent to convey royalties. | Yes; genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. |
| Is extrinsic evidence admissible to interpret Finlay’s intent? | Rowland contends extrinsic evidence should be considered. | Hamilton contends extrinsic evidence is insufficient to resolve intent. | Extrinsic evidence may aid interpretation; not dispositive on summary judgment. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate given the record? | Rowland argues there are inferences and disputed facts requiring trial. | Hamilton argues the language and evidence support a legal ruling. | No; the matter is not amenable to summary judgment and should be remanded. |
| Should the case be remanded for trial on the same record? | Rowland advocates new proceedings consistent with summary-judgment rules. | Hamilton seeks resolution on the current record via remand. | Remand for trial on the same record consistent with summary-judgment standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams Co. v. Hamilton, 427 N.W.2d 822 (N.D. 1988) (deeds ambiguous; grantor’s intent is a question of fact to be aided by extrinsic evidence)
- Bohn v. Johnson, 371 N.W.2d 781 (N.D. 1985) (ambiguity in deed language; extrinsic evidence may be used to determine intent)
- Malloy v. Boettcher, 334 N.W.2d 8 (N.D. 1983) (primary aim is to ascertain grantor’s intent in deeds)
- Mueller v. Stangeland, 340 N.W.2d 450 (N.D. 1983) (interpretation of contracts facilitates deed interpretation)
- Albers v. NoDak Racing Club, Inc., 256 N.W.2d 355 (N.D. 1977) (evidence and inferences in contract-like contexts)
- Smetana v. Farmers Union Oil Co., 764 N.W.2d 665 (N.D. 2009) (summary-judgment standards; need for factual inferences to resolve disputes)