919 N.W.2d 341
N.D.2018Background
- In May 2016 Walsh County notified Jann Thompson of unpaid 2013 property taxes and threatened foreclosure; the county recorded a tax deed on October 6, 2016.
- The Thompsons had attempted to pay with promissory notes and other instruments that county officials refused to accept as payment.
- On November 2, 2016, Jann Thompson paid 2013–2015 taxes and redeemed the property before the sale consummated.
- Before redeeming, the Thompsons sued the county, county officials, and the State alleging the State lacked authority to tax their property, refusal to accept payment, fraud, inverse condemnation, and slander of title.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the Thompsons failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not submitting tax-related claims to the county commissioners as required by statute; the district court granted summary judgment and dismissed tax claims without prejudice and other claims with prejudice.
- The Thompsons appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed, found many appellate arguments frivolous, and awarded double costs and $5,000 in attorney’s fees to defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by dismissing the tax-related claims | Thompsons: county should have accepted promissory notes and cannot lawfully tax their property | Defendants: Thompsons failed to submit tax claims to county commissioners as required by N.D.C.C. § 57-45-09 and § 57-23-04 | Held: Dismissal was proper; tax claims must first be submitted to county board; dismissal without prejudice appropriate |
| Whether county officials abused discretion by refusing promissory notes | Thompsons: refusal to accept notes was improper payment denial | Defendants: statutes permit county discretion to restrict payment forms and acceptance is not payment until honored | Held: Statutes give county discretion; acceptance is subject to collection; remedies lie with county board under abatement/refund procedures |
| Whether other tort and title claims could proceed despite failure to pursue administrative remedy | Thompsons: asserted fraud, inverse condemnation, slander of title, etc. | Defendants: procedural failure to exhaust bars tax-related claims; remaining claims not supported | Held: Tax-related claims dismissed without prejudice; remaining claims dismissed with prejudice for lack of merit |
| Whether the appeal was frivolous warranting sanctions | Defendants: appeal contains meritless sovereign-citizen and other baseless contentions; seek double costs and fees | Thompsons: advanced numerous constitutional and tax theories (e.g., federal obligation for taxes, invalidity of NDCC) | Held: Appeal frivolous; awarded double costs and $5,000 in attorney’s fees to defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Horob v. Farm Credit Servs. of N.D., 777 N.W.2d 611 (N.D. 2010) (summary judgment as a prompt procedural device)
- Palmer v. 999 Quebec, Inc., 874 N.W.2d 303 (N.D. 2016) (appellate standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- United Bank of Bismarck v. Young, 401 N.W.2d 517 (N.D. 1987) (requirements for affidavits documenting attorney fees when seeking sanctions)
- Williams v. State, 405 N.W.2d 615 (N.D. 1987) (standard for determining frivolous appeals)
- Lithun v. DuPaul, 449 N.W.2d 810 (N.D. 1989) (appeals devoid of merit justify sanctions)