State v. Wetzel
2011 ND 218
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Finstads owned 80 acres in Ransom County and leased 240 acres from the Olsons; 1997 options with the Water District restricted land use and granted lease-back rights and a right of first refusal.
- In 2001 Water District, a political subdivision, exercised its option to purchase the land; district concluded Finstads and Olsons had leased back property under the option.
- July 2001 Water District terminated lease-back rights due to trespass and land-use violations; bid process announced to lease the land.
- End of July 2001 Farm Rental Contract and Release terminated all Finstads’ rights to the land; Finstads later bid on lease in 2003 but were rejected.
- Finstads sued in 2006 (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to bankruptcy) and refiled in 2009 alleging contract and related claims; district court granted summary judgment for Water District in 2011.
- Court concludes the district court misapplied the 3-year statute of limitations for torts to contract claims and remands to determine proper limitations and resolve genuine issues of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 3-year limit governs contract claims against a political subdivision | 32-12.1-10 applies to torts, not contracts | Dimond controls, but there is ambiguity whether contracts fall under ch. 32-12.1 | Statute applies only to tort claims; remand to determine contract-limit applicability |
| Which statute of limitations applies to contract claims, ten-year or six-year | Contracts affecting real property fall under 28-01-15(2) ten years | Contracts follow the six-year 28-01-16 | Remand to decide whether 28-01-15(2) or 28-01-16 governs |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given genuine fact issues | Disputed land-use restrictions and tiling practices create material facts | Conclusion of limitations precludes merits and supports summary judgment | Summary judgment improper due to genuine issues of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Dimond v. State ex rel. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 2001 ND 208 (2001) (tort-based limits; distinguish against political subdivisions)
- Kitto v. Minot Park Dist., 224 N.W.2d 795 (N.D. 1974) (governmental immunity distinctions between state and subdivisions)
- Rosedale School Dist. No. 5 v. Towner County, 56 N.D. 41 (1927) (statutes of limitation apply to school districts and counties)
- Messiha v. State, 1998 ND 149 (1998) (state tort claims governed by ch. 32-12.2)
- Missouri Breaks, LLC v. Burns, 2010 ND 221 (2010) (summary judgment standards; de novo review on appeal)
- Nelson v. Johnson, 2010 ND 23 (2010) (statutory interpretation; general vs. specific provisions)