[¶ 1] Donnell and Jeanne Michels appealed from a judgment partitioning real property between the Michels and Beach Railport, LLC. We conclude that the district court erred by applying an incorrect legal standard to review and adopt the ■ partition referee’s report and that the court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I
[¶ 2] In 2015,' Beach Railport commenced this action against the Michels, who are husband and wife, for the partition of real property in Golden Valley-County. Beach Railport and the Michels each own an undivided one-half interest in the subject property, consisting of two tracts of land totaling eighty acres-the “North Forty” acres and the “South For: ty” acres. Donneli Michels has used the property for agricultural purposes. Beach Railport acquired its interest in the North Forty and various other tracts of land around the subject property as part of its planned construction of a rail trans-load facility. It also sought and obtained changes in zoning for certain property parcels. Beach Railport’s construction plan did not include development on the South Forty acres.
[¶ 3] In January 2016, Beach Railport and the Michels entered into a stipulation agreement to have the district court appoint attorney Steven Wild to serve as the sole referee to partition the real property. The court entered an order based on the stipulation, - declaring the Michels .
[¶4] The Michels and Beach Railport each hired appraisers to appraise the property. The referee subsequently viewed the property and reviewed the parties’ appraisals and their written submissions that described their respective positions on how the property should be partitioned. In July 2016, the referee filed' his report with the district court. In the report the referee decided that the property should be partitioned along the east-west quarter-quarter line, with Beach Railport receiving the North Forty and the Michels receiving the South Forty of the property. The referee concluded this partition was an equitable division of the property and neither party would be required to pay compensation to the other.
[¶ 6] Beach Railport moved the district court to confirm the referee’s report. The Michels responded and objected to Beach Railport’s motion for confirmation, submitting various exhibits and affidavits in opposition. The Michels contended that the referee did not make an equitable distribution of the property because, the partition was based on erroneous assumptions and not supported by evidence. They claimed that each party should receive equal amounts of property. zoned industrial and zoned agricultural; that the court should set aside the referee’s report or modify it in an east-west division; and that the matter should be tried in district court.
[¶ 6] In October 2016, the district court held a 'hearing on Beach Railport’s motion to ■ confirm the referee’s report. The Mi-. chels argued, among othér things, that a trial was necessary because of disputed issues of fact about valuation of the property.. The court denied the Michels an evi-dentiary hearing and confirmed the referee’s report, adopting the report’s findings and conclusions in its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment. A judgment of partition was entered.
H
[¶ 7] The Michels, argue the district court abused its discretion in allotting the North Forty to Beach Railport and the South Forty to them.
[¶ 8] Chapter 32-16, N.D.C.C., provides a special statutory proceeding and governs the partition of real property. See also N,D.R.Civ.P. 81(a), Table A (containing “a nonexclusive list of statutes, pertaining to” special statutory procedures). Section 32-16-01, N.D.C.C., authorizes proceedings to partition property “according ■ to the respective rights of the persons interested therein and for a sale of such property or a part thereof, if it appears that a -partition cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners.” If the property is “so situated that partition', cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners, the court may order sale” of the property. N.D.C.C. § 32-16-12. Otherwise, the court must order a partition according to the parties’ respective ownership rights and appoint
[¶ 9] “In making the partition, referees must divide the property and allot the several portions thereof to the respective parties, quality and quantity relatively considered, according to the respective rights of the parties as determined by the court.” N.D.C.C. § 32-16-13. “The referees must make a report of their proceedings, specifying therein the manner in which they executed their trust, and describing the property divided- and the share allotted to each party with a particular description of each share.” N.D.C.C. § 32-16-14. “The court may confirm, change, modify, or set aside the report of the referees and, if necessary, may appoint new referees.” N.D.C.C. § 32-16-15.
[¶ 10] Under N.D.c'c. § 32-16-01, “[partition is a matter of right between cotenants.” In re Estate of Loomer,
[¶ 11] A, district court’s decision on the proper division of property or proceeds between the parties and the form of relief granted will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Eastman,
A
[¶ 12] The Michels, argue the district court’s decision to adopt the referee’s findings of fact as its own is clearly erroneous. They contend the court misconstrued its obligations under N.D.C.C. ch. 32-16 in adopting the referee’s report, and even if the court applied the proper standard, the court misapplied that standard.
[¶ 13] At the October 2016 hearing, the district court stated it was adopting the findings of the referee’s report. In so doing, however, the court explained that it would defer to the referee’s findings 'absent some “glaring error” and that the court found no “glaring error” to either reject or modify the referee’s report. The court further explained:
I have reviewed the briefs, I have reviewed the report of the referee. I note that he, in fact, specifies what he reviewed. It included appraisals both from[the Michels] and from [Beach Railport], respective appraisals.... I believe that my role in this instance is more in the nature of determining whether or not there was substantial evidence upon which the referee could make his decisions. I find that there is a substantial basis for him to make the ultimate decision, regardless of whether or not there were substantial bas[e]s for some of the minor aspects of that....
(Emphasis added.)
[¶ 14] The Michels argue the district court erred when it rejected reviewing the referee’s report- de novo. They assert the report is only a proposal and a court is not bound to accept it. They further contend the report should not receive deference accorded to decisions of an administrative agency or executive branch commission. They contend that N.D.C.C. § 32-16-15 does not require the court give any deference to the referee’s report and the court’s decision to adopt the referee’s findings in this case was induced by an erroneous view of the law and is clearly erroneous. The Michels argue, alternatively, that if “substantial evidence” is the proper standard, the court misapplied that standard because the court must actually review the evidence.
[¶ 15] Beach Railport responds that the district court properly confirmed the referee’s report and that the referee considered all the information the parties submitted, including information from the Michels’ appraiser. Beach Railport asserts the affidavits and other documents the Michels submitted to the court in objecting to its motion to confirm did not persuade the court the referee had erred in its findings. Beach Railport contends the district court may defer to the referee’s findings under N.D.C.C. ch. 32-16 and' can adopt the referee’s report in a partition action without looking into the underlying evidence relied on by the referee. Beach Railport further contends the court evaluated the referee’s report and found sufficient evidence in the record supported confirming-, the report.
[¶ 16] Here, the district court stated at the hearing on Beach Railport’s motion to confirm the referee’s report that it would be deciding whether “substantial evidence” existed for the referee to make the “ultimate decision.” This Court has generally applied this type of “substantial evidence” standard in reviewing appeals from orders of the Industrial Commission under N.D.C.C. § 38-08-14. See Langved v. Continental Res., Inc.,
[¶ 17] Under N.D.C.C. § 32-16-15, however, after the district court has received the report of the referees, “[t]he court may confirm, change, modify, or set aside the report of the referees and, if necessary, may appoint new referees.” Construing similar statutes, courts have held a referees’ report constitutes only a “proposal” for the court’s consideration and the court has discretion in reviewing or adopting the report. See, e.g., Gartner v. Temple,
[¶ 18] While a district court may commit error if it confirms a referees’ report not supported by “substantial evidence,” see Britton v. Brown,
[¶ 19] On this , record, the district court reviewed, the referee’s report and findings with deference usually accorded to executive branch commissions or agencies, with the basis of such deferential review grounded in the doctrine of separation of powers. Such deference is not appropriate for referees in a partition action. Rather, in reviewing the referees’ report under N.D.C.C, § 32-16-15, the district court retains its discretion and the ultimate responsibility to decide whether a proposed partition is equitable. Although the district court agreed with the referee’s report and adopted its findings of fact, we conclude the court in this case applied too deferential of a standard of review in considering the referee’s report.
[¶20] We conclude that the district court’s decision to adopt the referee’s findings of fact as its own findings was induced by an erroneous view of the law in its consideration whether to confirm the report. We therefore conclude the court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous and reverse and remand for the court to apply the correct standard in deciding whether to “confirm, change, modify, or set aside” the referee report under N.D.C.C. § 32-16-15.
B.
[¶ 21] The Michels argue the district court erred in refusing.to hold an evidentiary hearing despite their request in objecting to Beach Railport’s motion to confirm the referee’s report.
[¶22] Generally, an equitable action is triable to the court without a jury, Union State Bank v. Miller;
[¶ 23] During the October 2016 hearing, the Michels’ counsel requested an opportunity to cross-examine Beach-Railport’s appraiser and to present additional evidence to the court supporting their proposed partition. In their objection to Beach Rail-port’s motion to confirm the referee’s report, the Michels specifically requested the court hold a trial on disputed factual issues. They challenged the report’s specific findings on the property’s value including the value of three grain bins, the purported “equal” value of the north and south halves for agricultural purposes, and the specific values for the halves. They contend the findings are disputed and the referee did not explain how it reconciled the parties’ conflicting evidence.
[¶24] The Michels argue' the- district court should have held an evidentiary hearing and rely on Britton,
[¶ 26] In Coon v. N.D. Dep’t of Health,
The state and federal constitutions provide the State may not deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. See U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1; N.D. Const, art. I, § 12. “The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” In re N.A.,2016 ND 91 , ¶ 10,879 N.W.2d 82 (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge,424 U.S. 319 , 333 [96 S.Ct. 893 ,47 L.Ed.2d 18 ] (1976)). The first inquiry in every due process challenge is to determine whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a “property” or “liberty” interest. American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,526 U.S. 40 , 59 [119 S.Ct. 977 ,143 L.Ed.2d 130 ] (1999). “Only after finding the deprivation of a protected interest do we look to see if the State’s procedures comport with due process.” Id.; see also Wilkinson v. Austin,545 U.S. 209 , 224-25 [125 S.Ct. 2384 ,162 L.Ed.2d 174 ] (2005) (stating the three-prong test from Mathews v. Eldridge applies once a protected liberty or property interest has been established).
[¶ 26] In Britton,
Parties to a partition action have the right to object to the referees’ partition report before the District Court. This : objection may be founded upon a material mistake of law or of fact[.] Because a partition action is an adversarial proceeding, the party who believes that the -referees’ report is deficient bears the burden of offering sufficient evidence to support her objection. If the referees’ report becomes a matter of legitimate dispute due to the. submission of sufficient evidence, the report then is subject to challenge in an evidentiary hearing. If the district court fails to hold an eviden-tiary hearing after a party submits sufficient evidence challenging the report, the court has denied that party due process of the law. An objection unsupported tby sufficient evidence does not entitle a party to an evidentiary hearing because that would frustrate the statute’s goal of providing a cheap and expeditious method of partition.
Britton, at ¶ 29 (citations and quotation marks omitted). See also 59A Am. Jur.2d Partition § 112 (2015) (“[I]f a report becomes a matter of legitimate dispute due to the submission of sufficient evidence, the report is subject to challenge in an evidentiary hearing.”).
[¶ 27] We agree with the Montana Supreme. Court’s rationale in the Britton case and adopt it for deciding when due process requires the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Britton,
[¶ 28] In this case, the Michels objected to the referee’s partition report, submitted evidencie challenging the factual findings and conclusions, and requested a trial. We conclude the submitted evidence sufficiently placed the referee’s report in legitimate dispute. On the basis of our review, we hold the Michels’ objections were sufficient to compel the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing. We therefore direct that the district court hold an evidentiary-hearing on remand. As in Britton,
C
[¶ 29] The Michels argue the referee’s report and district court’s conclusions do not comply with N.D.C.C. ch. 32-16 and various common law considerations. They contend the referee and court .erred in relying and applying the Schnell factors in partitioning the land. See Schnell,
[¶ 30] Because we are reversing and remanding this case, we do not address these issues but rather permit the district court to consider the Michels’ arguments in the further proceedings on remand, which may render the issues moot after the evidentia-ry hearing.
111
[¶ 31] We have, considered the parties’ ■ remaining arguments and conclude they are either without merit or unnecessary to our decision. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
[¶ 32]
[¶ 33] The Honorable Jon J. Jensen was not a member of the Court when this case was heard and did not participate in this