916 N.W.2d 772
N.D.2018Background
- In April 2016 Creech signed a deed conveying real property to Tornabeni; Tornabeni recorded the deed June 2, 2016. Creech continued to occupy the property without a lease or rent obligation.
- On October 6, 2017, Tornabeni served a notice of intent to evict stating Creech had failed to pay rent and to vacate; Creech did not vacate.
- Tornabeni filed for forcible removal; a hearing was scheduled within the statutory 3–15 day window and initially held November 1, 2017, then continued to November 6, 2017.
- Creech asserted the deed was forged and attempted to introduce vehicle registration cards and a prior eviction notice as exhibits but failed to lay foundation; the court excluded them.
- Witnesses including the notary, a witness to signing, and the county recorder testified; the district court found the deed valid by a preponderance and entered judgment evicting Creech. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tornabeni) | Defendant's Argument (Creech) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of notice under N.D.C.C. § 47-32-02 | Notice adequately informed Creech to vacate for failure to vacate after owner request | Notice was deficient because it alleged failure to pay rent though Creech owed no rent | Notice satisfied § 47-32-02; not deficient |
| Due process / summary eviction timetable | Summary eviction procedure and 3–15 day timeline are permissible; court may control hearing time | Title dispute is complex and summary timeline deprived Creech of due process and discovery | No due-process violation; court did not abuse discretion in proceeding under chapter 47-32 |
| Exclusion of exhibits for lack of foundation | Trial court properly excluded exhibits where foundation was not laid; Creech was told how to cure but did not | Exclusion was improper and deprived Creech of evidence supporting forgery and title claims | Exclusion was within the court’s discretion and did not affect substantial rights |
| Validity, delivery, and effect of deed (forgery claim) | Deed was validly executed, notarized, and recorded; witnesses supported authenticity | Signature was forged; deed therefore invalid and no proper transfer occurred | Findings that signature was not forged and deed effective were supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- United Bank of Bismarck v. Trout, 480 N.W.2d 742 (N.D. 1992) (eviction actions frequently raise title questions)
- Rath v. Rath, 876 N.W.2d 474 (N.D. 2016) (district court discretion controlling hearing scope and timing)
- Swiontek v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 432 N.W.2d 893 (N.D. 1988) (exclusion for inadequate foundation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Piatz v. Austin Mut. Ins. Co., 646 N.W.2d 681 (N.D. 2002) (standard for excluding exhibits lacking foundation)
- Pierce v. Anderson, 912 N.W.2d 291 (N.D. 2018) (clearly erroneous standard for review of district court fact findings)