Wilkinson v. Board of University and School Lands of the State of N.D., 947 N.W.2d 910

Background:

J.T. and Evelyn Wilkinson conveyed land to the U.S. for Garrison Dam in 1958 but expressly reserved the oil, gas, and other minerals; plaintiffs are successors asserting those mineral rights.
Plaintiffs sued (2012) the Land Board and lessees to quiet title to minerals and sought takings/damages; the district court originally ruled for the State but this Court reversed and remanded to consider N.D.C.C. ch. 61-33.1.
The Department hired an engineering firm (Wenck Study); the Industrial Commission adopted/amended the Study, delineating the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for segments including the Wilkinson property.
On remand the district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment, held ch. 61-33.1 applies, found the Wilkinson parcels are above the OHWM, and entered judgment quieting title in plaintiffs while stating the statutory process was concluded.
Land Board, State Engineer, and Statoil appealed; this Court concluded the judgment was not final under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) but exercised supervisory jurisdiction to review the legal issues.
Holding: Court affirmed that ch. 61-33.1 applies and the Wilkinson property lies above the historical riverbed OHWM (so not State sovereign lands), but reversed the district court’s premature quiet-title/conclusion of the statutory process and remanded for completion of required acreage/royalty procedures and unresolved damage claims.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Does ch. 61-33.1 apply to the Wilkinson property?	Ch. 61-33.1 governs ownership for property within the statute’s geographic definition; Wilkinson is inside that area.	State Engineer argued ch. 61-33.1 should be limited to land "subject to inundation by Pick-Sloan dams" and that factual inundation issues preclude summary judgment.	Held: ch. 61-33.1 applies as a matter of law because the property lies within the statute’s defined geographic area; the State Engineer’s narrower reading rejected.
2) Is the Industrial Commission/Wenck determination that the parcels lie above the OHWM conclusive?	Plaintiffs: Wenck Study adopted by the Industrial Commission establishes the parcels are above OHWM, so State has no sovereign mineral interest.	Land Board/State argued determinations and acreage are not final until further statutory processes (acreage approval, challenge periods) are complete.	Held: The Wenck/Industrial Commission determination establishes the parcels are above the OHWM and thus not State sovereign lands. However, that finding does not end the statutory process.
3) Could the district court quiet title and end the statutory process now?	Plaintiffs: Once OHWM is delineated and Industrial Commission adopted Wenck, title may be declared in owners and State bound.	Land Board/Statoil: Court erred by quieting title before final acreage determinations, release of royalties, and exhaustion of statutory challenge periods.	Held: District court erred in concluding the statutory process was completed and in prematurely quieting title; remaining statutory steps (acreage determinations, potential royalty releases, damage claims) must proceed.
4) Is the judgment appealable (Rule 54(b))?	Plaintiffs: summary judgment/quiet-title is appealable.	Appellants: judgment is non-final because other claims (takings/damages) remain; Rule 54(b) certification was not sought.	Held: Judgment was non-final and not properly certified under Rule 54(b); the Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to review the issues.

Key Cases Cited

Wilkinson v. Bd. of Univ. and Sch. Lands, 2017 ND 231, 903 N.W.2d 51 (prior appeal reversing state's earlier judgment and remanding to apply ch. 61-33.1)
Nygaard v. Taylor, 2017 ND 206, 900 N.W.2d 833 (standards for appealability and supervisory jurisdiction)
Greer v. Global Indus., Inc., 2018 ND 206, 917 N.W.2d 1 (Rule 54(b) certification and multi-claim/multi-party appeals)
THR Minerals, LLC v. Robinson, 2017 ND 78, 892 N.W.2d 193 (summary judgment standards)
Rocky Mountain Steel Founds., Inc. v. Brockett Co., LLC, 2018 ND 96, 909 N.W.2d 671 (statutory interpretation principles)
Sorum v. State, 2020 ND 175, N.W.2d (statutory recognition of State’s obligation to return improperly claimed minerals under ch. 61-33.1)