Winnie Development, LLLP v. Reveling
2018 ND 47
| N.D. | 2018Background
- In 1979 Carroll and Mary Lou Orth platted the Orth-Golberg Second Addition in Horace; Block 1, Lot 14 was labeled on the plat as "City Dike Access" (Parcel 1), but the plat's written Dedication did not specifically describe Parcel 1.
- Parcel 1 is a 20-foot lot providing the only practical access to an adjacent 1.6-acre parcel (Parcel 2) that Winnie Development now owns; Parcel 1 was not taxed until Winnie obtained a quitclaim deed from Mary Lou Orth in 2014.
- Winnie sued to quiet title to Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, to establish an easement by necessity over Parcel 1, or to reform the plat; the district court quieted title to Parcel 2 for Winnie but ruled Winnie had no interest in Parcel 1.
- The City of Horace counterclaimed and successfully obtained summary judgment that the City has a right to use Parcel 1 to access dikes; the district court found the plat designation divested Orth of title to Parcel 1.
- The Hendricks, owners of property south of Parcel 1, counterclaimed asserting ownership; the district court rejected their claims. Winnie appealed, arguing it holds fee title to Parcel 1 (via quitclaim) or, at minimum, an easement by necessity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the plat effectuate a statutory dedication transferring fee title of Parcel 1 to the City? | Winnie: statutory dedication failed because Dedication lacks specific description of Parcel 1, so fee did not vest in City. | Hendricks/City: plat language and label "City Dike Access" transferred title or at least limited use to City access. | The statutory dedication failed for lack of a full and accurate description; fee did not vest in City. |
| If statutory dedication failed, was there a common-law dedication creating a public interest in Parcel 1? | Winnie: even if statutory dedication failed, common-law dedication (intent + public acceptance) created a public easement limited to dike access. | Hendricks: plat transfer/divestiture should have been treated as transferring title or broader interest to City. | Court: common-law dedication established; City acquired an easement (not fee) for dike access. |
| What is the effect of Winnie’s 2014 quitclaim deed from Orth? | Winnie: quitclaim conveyed fee title to Parcel 1 (subject to any existing easement). | City/Hendricks: deed conveyed nothing if Orth had been divested by the plat. | Court: because only an easement vested in the City, Orth retained fee; the quitclaim deed conveyed fee to Winnie subject to City's easement. |
| Did Winnie prove an easement by necessity to access Parcel 2? | Winnie: alternatively entitled to easement by necessity over Parcel 1 to reach Parcel 2. | Hendricks: no easement by necessity proven; plat/dedication controls access. | Court: did not find a necessary easement; but Winnie's fee ownership of Parcel 1 (subject to City's easement) allows access consistent with City's rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tibert v. City of Minto, 679 N.W.2d 440 (N.D. 2004) (explains statutory vs. common-law dedication and elements for common-law dedication)
- Cole v. Minnesota Loan & Trust Co., 117 N.W. 354 (N.D. 1908) (discusses requirements for dedication and extent of interest conveyed)
- City of Cincinnati v. White’s Lessee, 31 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1832) (describes sufficiency of owner assent and public use for dedication)
- Griffeth v. Eid, 573 N.W.2d 829 (N.D. 1998) (standard of review for implied easements and trial findings)
Outcome: Reversed and remanded with instruction to enter judgment that Winnie holds fee title to Parcel 1 subject to the City of Horace’s easement for dike access.