Zundel v. Zundel
2017 ND 217
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Edwin Zundel (via family partnership) leased a five-acre "bin site" used for grain and farm-equipment storage to his sons in 2006 for a total annual rent of $400; lease term stated to last "the life of all tenants."
- The partnership later conveyed the bin site to Stephen, who became landlord; dispute arose in 2014 when Stephen sought $400 from each tenant and demanded various repairs.
- Loren and Richard sued in 2015 seeking a declaratory judgment that they complied with the lease and contribution from Stephen; Stephen counterclaimed for eviction and sought a declaration that the lease was void under N.D.C.C. § 47-16-02 (ten-year limit on agricultural leases).
- The district court granted judgment on the pleadings that total rent was $400 (not $400 per tenant) and that the bin site was not "agricultural land" under § 47-16-02; after trial it found Loren and Richard had complied with the lease, dismissed Stephen’s eviction counterclaim, and awarded attorney fees for frivolous counterclaims.
- The trial court awarded Loren and Richard $21,182 in fees (out of requested $67,754.50); the Supreme Court affirmed the lease and findings of no breach, reversed part of the fee award, and remanded for recalculation of fees related to the § 47-16-02 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Loren & Richard's Argument | Stephen's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lease violates N.D.C.C. § 47-16-02 (10-year limit on agricultural leases) | Lease not subject to § 47-16-02 because the bin site is not agricultural land | Lease covers agricultural use (grain storage/handling, equipment storage) and thus is subject to the ten-year rule | The lease does not violate § 47-16-02 because the leased property is not "agricultural land." |
| Whether the leased property qualifies as "agricultural land" | Lease expressly states land is "not suitable for farming" and excludes pasture; so not agricultural | Property is used/capable of agricultural purposes (grain/equipment storage) and thus should qualify | Property is not agricultural land under the statutory definition; court applied related statutory definition and lease language. |
| Whether Loren and Richard breached repair obligations under the lease | They maintained the bin site in "good condition and repair" meaning functional/operable; many requested repairs were cosmetic or unreasonable | They failed to make required repairs (trees, electrical, buildings, pole barn) and thus breached | Trial court’s factual findings that tenants kept the site functional were not clearly erroneous; no material breach; eviction dismissed. |
| Whether Stephen’s counterclaims were frivolous and what fees are recoverable | Counterclaims were frivolous; full fees should be awarded | Counterclaims were not frivolous (esp. § 47-16-02 claim); fees unwarranted or should be limited | Court erred in finding the § 47-16-02 counterclaim frivolous (law unsettled); other counterclaims were frivolous; fee award affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to reallocate fees related to the § 47-16-02 claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Lyons, 845 N.W.2d 1 (2014) (outlines elements required to invalidate an agricultural lease under statutes limiting duration)
- Blixt v. Anderson, 72 N.W.2d 799 (N.D. 1955) (discusses requirements for invalidating agricultural leases)
- Trauger v. Helm Bros., Inc., 279 N.W.2d 406 (N.D. 1979) (uses of land such as mining are not "agricultural purposes")
- Berry-Iverson Co. v. Johnson, 242 N.W.2d 126 (N.D. 1976) (uses like radio towers not "agricultural purposes")
- Knudson v. Kyllo, 819 N.W.2d 511 (2012) (illustrates prior uncertainty in lower-court treatment of what qualifies as agricultural land)