Swenson v. Mahlum, 927 N.W.2d 850

Robert and Junietta Swenson conveyed farmland to their children as joint tenants, reserving life estates; Junietta leased the land to Willis until her 2013 death.
Willis leased the property to Mahlum in a December 2009 lease requiring a $31,022.50 annual payment due March 1 each year; the lease specified alternative payment allocations only if Junietta died before the payment date.
In January 2013 Lee Alan Swenson, as Junietta’s guardian/conservator, executed a separate lease with Mahlum requiring payments to Junietta; Mahlum paid rent to Junietta (and later to her estate) in 2013.
Willis sued Mahlum in 2017 for unpaid rent for 2013–2016; Mahlum counterclaimed against Junietta’s children (third-party defendants) for unjust enrichment, alleging he paid them portions of rent in later years.
The district court dismissed Willis’s claims against Mahlum with prejudice (finding Mahlum protected by the conservatorship statute and that the Willis–Junietta lease terminated at death), and dismissed Mahlum’s third-party claims without prejudice.
The Supreme Court reversed: it held the 2009 lease remained effective for 2013, Mahlum breached by not paying Willis, N.D.C.C. § 30.1-29-23 does not shield Mahlum from Willis’s contract claim, and remanded for calculation of damages and adjudication of Mahlum’s third-party claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Appealability of mixed dismissal (claims dismissed with/without prejudice)	Willis: appealable because district resolved his claims with prejudice	Third-party defendants/Mahlum: dismissal without prejudice makes judgment nonfinal	Court: appealable—practical effect terminated litigation; jurisdiction exists
2. Whether Mahlum breached 2009 lease for 2013 rent	Willis: 2009 lease required $31,022.50 to Willis by March 1, 2013; Mahlum didn’t pay Willis	Mahlum: paid rent in good faith to conservator/Junietta and relied on conservatorship lease; statute shields him	Court: Mahlum breached; lease remained effective for 2013; reversal of dismissal
3. Applicability of conservatorship protection (N.D.C.C. § 30.1-29-23)	Willis: statute does not protect Mahlum from his contract claim	Mahlum: statute protects those who deal in good faith with a conservator from claims	Court: statute protects transactions with conservator but does not excuse breach of a third-party contract; statute did not bar Willis’s claim against Mahlum
4. Proper measure/limitation of damages for 2013 breach	Willis: entitled to full contract amount ($31,022.50) as expectation damages	Mahlum: damages should be limited because Willis owed Junietta and mitigation or offset applies	Court: district court’s limitation to $11,006.50 was erroneous; on remand court must determine proper damages and mitigation

James Vault & Precast Co. v. B & B Hot Oil Serv., Inc., 908 N.W.2d 108 (N.D. 2018) (final-judgment/appealability principles where claims dismissed without prejudice)
Conrad v. Wilkinson, 901 N.W.2d 348 (N.D. 2017) (dismissal without prejudice generally nonappealable; exceptions explained)
Bell v. Pro Tune Plus, 835 N.W.2d 858 (N.D. 2013) (orders dismissing without prejudice typically nonfinal)
Triple Quest, Inc. v. Cleveland Gear Co., Inc., 627 N.W.2d 379 (N.D. 2001) (same appealability context)
Stuber v. Engel, 900 N.W.2d 230 (N.D. 2017) (interpretation of Uniform Probate Code provisions)
WFND, LLC v. Fargo Marc, LLC, 730 N.W.2d 841 (N.D. 2007) (elements of breach of contract and appellate review)
Bakke v. Magi-Touch Carpet One Floor & Home, Inc., 920 N.W.2d 726 (N.D. 2018) (definition of breach and damages principles)
Zundel v. Zundel, 901 N.W.2d 731 (N.D. 2017) (contract and lease interpretation principles)
Abelmann v. Smartlease USA, L.L.C., 856 N.W.2d 747 (N.D. 2014) (contract interpretation rules)
Ruud v. Larson, 392 N.W.2d 62 (N.D. 1986) (mitigation of damages is a factual question)
Vallejo v. Jamestown Coll., 244 N.W.2d 753 (N.D. 1976) (expectation damages aim to place injured party in position as if contract performed)