Paul M. Sand

Keith Lambott sued United Tribes Educational Technical Center for breach of his employment contract after the nonprofit failed to renew his position as a printing instructor for the 1982-83 academic year. The district court dismissed the action, finding that Lambott had presumptively received an internal memo regarding funding uncertainty that served as notice of non-renewal. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that United Tribes breached the contract by not providing the required written notice from the Dean of Education by April 2, 1982, that the internal memo did not qualify as proper notice under the contract terms, and that the contingent funding provision did not excuse compliance with the notice requirement because BIA funding continued to exist. The court remanded the case for a determination of Lambott's damages.

labor & employment

The case involved a dispute over ownership of a 50% mineral interest in real property in Slope County, North Dakota. McLaughlin, successors to the original sellers (Moravecs), sued the Lambourns in a quiet title action claiming the mineral rights based on a 1952 quitclaim deed from FFMC to the Moravecs. The district court dismissed the claim, ruling that the 1950 contract for deed and subsequent warranty deed conveyed the property in fee simple to the Lambourns without reservation, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court applied the doctrine of estoppel by deed, finding that the Lambourns had relied on the conveyance without knowledge of any mineral reservation and that the sellers were barred from later asserting a conflicting interest in the minerals.

property

This case involved a product liability lawsuit by Ronald Keller against Vermeer Manufacturing Company and others after Keller suffered a severe arm injury while operating a Vermeer hay baler in 1979. Keller sued on theories including negligence in design, testing, labeling, and warnings, strict liability, and breach of warranties. The jury found Vermeer 50% at fault, Liberty Mutual 13% at fault, and Keller 37% contributorily negligent, awarding $800,000 in damages; the trial court entered judgment against Vermeer for $504,000 plus costs. On appeal, Vermeer challenged a jury instruction on momentary forgetfulness of a known danger, certain evidentiary rulings, and the award of costs and disbursements. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and cost award, holding that the instruction was appropriate under comparative negligence principles, that the record supported its use, and that the trial court properly allowed the prevailing party's disbursements under state statute.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved David Cunningham, who had separate employment contracts as a school principal and as a superintendent with Yellowstone Public School District No. 14. The school board terminated his principal position and abrogated his future superintendent contract after receiving complaints from teachers, following a hearing under North Dakota law. Cunningham appealed the terminations, arguing the board failed to properly consider the impact on his professional reputation. The court affirmed the termination of the principal contract, finding the board complied with the required procedures and standards under NDCC § 15-47-38. It dismissed the challenge to the superintendent contract for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because the statute governing such hearings applies to principals but not superintendents.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involves an appeal by Eldor Miller and Freedom Unlimited from a district court order for judgment in garnishment proceedings that were supplementary to a prior affirmed judgment in favor of Union State Bank. In the underlying action, the bank had garnished $16,000 in rental payments due to the Millers, Freedom Unlimited intervened claiming ownership of the payments as a common-law trust, and a jury found that the Millers had conveyed property to the trust with intent to defraud creditors, leading the trial court to award the funds to the bank. The North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the right to appeal is governed by statute and that an order for judgment is not an appealable order, depriving the court of jurisdiction.

procedure

The case involved the administrative suspension of Bruce Kobilansky's driver's license after a breathalyzer test indicated a blood alcohol concentration of 0.14 percent, which led to charges of driving while intoxicated. The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed whether certified breathalyzer records and test results could be admitted at the Commissioner's hearing without testimony from the operator who administered the test. The district court had reversed the suspension, finding a due process violation, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision and reinstated the 90-day suspension. The court held that administrative hearings under state law are not strictly bound by the Rules of Evidence and may admit probative documentary evidence, with the driver having the option to subpoena the operator if needed.

criminal lawprocedure

In Mitchell v. Preusse, tenants sued their landlord after he failed to complete remodeling and make the apartment habitable by the September 1 lease start date, leading the tenants to cancel the lease and seek return of their rent and security deposit. The trial court found the landlord breached the rental contract and withheld the security deposit without reasonable justification, awarding the tenants $300 in rent plus treble damages of $900 under North Dakota law. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the breach and damages findings as not clearly erroneous, rejected arguments that the tenants had waived the breach, and determined the appeal was frivolous, awarding costs and up to $500 in attorney fees to the tenants. The core reasoning rested on statutory landlord obligations to maintain habitable conditions, factual findings under Rule 52(a), and appellate rules allowing sanctions for meritless appeals.

property

The case involved a negligence claim by plaintiff Calavera against defendant Vix for injuries sustained in a car accident. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing the action, ruling that Calavera failed to meet the $1,000 medical expense threshold under the North Dakota Auto Accident Reparations Act within the six-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed and remanded for trial, holding that the Act exempts secured persons from liability unless the injury results in medical expenses exceeding $1,000 and does not require those expenses to be incurred within the limitations period; instead, a timely-filed action may proceed if the plaintiff can in good faith establish at trial that total medical expenses, including future ones reasonably certain to occur, will exceed the threshold.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Miller, Eldor and Ida Miller were convicted by a jury of defrauding a secured creditor under North Dakota law after a bank found far less wheat than pledged as collateral on their farm when attempting to satisfy a judgment on delinquent loans. The defendants appealed, arguing insufficient evidence supported the guilty verdicts. The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the record and determined that the circumstantial evidence of missing wheat did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Millers had destroyed, concealed, or otherwise dealt with the collateral with the intent to prevent debt collection. The court held that the statute requires proof of culpability and is not a strict liability offense, so mere disappearance of the wheat could not sustain the convictions. The judgments were vacated with instructions to enter acquittals.

criminal law

The case involved Union State Bank suing William Woell and his company on two promissory notes secured by machinery and a purchase order, after Woell sold some collateral at auction; Woell answered with a general denial and filed a counterclaim alleging the bank wrongfully terminated financing, interfered with the auction, and destroyed his business. The trial court severed the counterclaim, granted summary judgment to the bank on the notes, allowed the bank to collect deposited auction proceeds, and certified the judgment as final under Rule 54(b) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure. Woell appealed, but the North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the certification was improvidently granted because the counterclaim was compulsory and logically related to the main claims, the case did not qualify as an infrequent harsh case warranting immediate review, and the policy against piecemeal appeals required the trial court to vacate the certification.

procedure

The case involved a savings and loan association that loaned over $1.4 million to a partnership of four defendants, secured by a promissory note, a real estate mortgage, and individual written guarantees from each partner. After the loan went delinquent, the lender foreclosed on the mortgage, obtained a judgment, and purchased the property at a sheriff's sale by bidding the full amount of the judgment plus interest and costs, thereby satisfying the foreclosure judgment. The lender then sought summary judgment in a separate action to recover from the defendants on their personal guarantees. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the purchase satisfied and extinguished the underlying debt, which in turn discharged the guarantees because they were secondary obligations dependent on the primary debt. The court distinguished prior cases and noted that the result aligned with decisions from other jurisdictions on similar facts.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved Bob Mathisen's appeal from convictions on eight counts of issuing checks without sufficient funds under the 1981 version of NDCC § 6-08-16, along with a contempt finding for failing to meet prior sentencing conditions such as restitution. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgments, holding that the statute remained valid as applied and that Mathisen's post-waiver request for a jury trial was properly denied after a knowing and intelligent waiver in open court, with repeated continuances and witness arrangements weighing against further delay. The court further reasoned that Mathisen's sole defense—a claimed good-faith belief in sufficient funds—did not constitute a legally recognized affirmative defense under the statute, as insufficient funds at presentment were undisputed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Reginald Foard, who was charged with sexually molesting his five-year-old daughter. In a bench trial, after the defense rested, the judge inquired whether the state intended to introduce the daughter's pajamas into evidence during rebuttal, which the state then did over the defendant's objection. Foard appealed, arguing that the judge's inquiry showed bias and abuse of discretion because it suggested evidence to resolve a perceived reasonable doubt. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the judge did not abuse discretion or abandon impartiality, as the comments left the decision to counsel and the trial was to the court rather than a jury.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved John C. Weisz, who was convicted by a jury of delivering a controlled substance, specifically marijuana, in violation of North Dakota law. Weisz appealed the conviction, arguing that the ten-month delay between the offense and his arrest prejudiced his defense, that he was entrapped by law enforcement using a confidential informant, and that there was insufficient evidence to prove the substance was marijuana. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the delay did not violate due process because it was within the statute of limitations and no actual prejudice was shown, that the evidence did not establish entrapment as the informant merely provided an opportunity, and that expert testimony sufficiently proved the substance was marijuana.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Louis Frandson claiming a share of his deceased wife Elsie's estate as an omitted spouse under North Dakota's probate code, since her will was made before their marriage and did not mention him. The county court ruled that Louis was not an omitted spouse because Elsie had transferred substantial property to him through joint tenancies outside the will, with the intent that these transfers substitute for any testamentary provision, as permitted by § 30.1-06-01(2-301), N.D.C.C. This determination rested on the value of the jointly held assets (over $136,000 total, with Elsie contributing about $81,000), the short duration of the marriage, and other evidence showing conscious retention of separate assets by Elsie. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, holding that the amount of transfers alone can support a finding of intent and that the trial court properly denied Louis's mid-trial summary judgment motion due to lack of proper notice and the need for factual findings on intent.

family lawproperty

In Lipp v. Lipp, Rosalie Lipp appealed an amended divorce judgment that reduced monthly payments labeled as alimony from her ex-husband William, which had originally been set at roughly the amount of the mortgage on the jointly owned home. The lower court, relying on a referee's findings, granted William's motion to modify after concluding that the equalization of the parties' incomes since the 1979 divorce—driven by Rosalie's post-divorce education and career advancement—constituted a material change in circumstances warranting reduction of the payments to half the mortgage principal. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that no material change in circumstances had occurred because the bare fact of increased income does not justify modification without considering its cause, and the payments were tied to the property settlement rather than modifiable spousal support. The court therefore vacated the amended judgment and reinstated the original terms. The opinion also addressed but did not resolve issues of arrears and contract interpretation of the original agreement.

family lawproperty

The case involved a construction worker injured on the job in North Dakota who received workers' compensation benefits under Minnesota coverage; after the worker sued third-party defendants for damages, those defendants sought contribution from the worker's employer, a Minnesota company that had also secured North Dakota coverage. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing the employer from the action, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that North Dakota's workers' compensation statutes provide employers with immunity from contribution claims by third-party tortfeasors, and that this exclusive-remedy protection applies even when the employee elects benefits under another state's law. The decision rested on North Dakota's strong public policy favoring certain and exclusive relief for injured workers in exchange for immunity to complying employers, which would be undermined by applying Minnesota's contribution rule.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In Nilson v. Markestad, the plaintiff sued the defendant for damages to his residence and hay crop allegedly caused by the defendant's unauthorized drainage of water from a slough on his property, which increased water flow onto the plaintiff's land. The district court dismissed the action, finding that the defendant had merely cleaned debris from a natural drainway without needing a permit under state law and that this constituted a reasonable use of his property. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the relevant statute requiring a permit for draining sloughs of 80 acres or more does not apply to merely maintaining a natural drainway by removing sediment. The court further determined that the trial court's findings supported the defendant's compliance with the reasonable use doctrine, as the actions were necessary, did not create an unreasonable burden, and aided the natural drainage system without exceeding its capacity.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved Donald Wucherpfennig seeking specific performance of an alleged contract to buy his sister Elizabeth Dooley's share of inherited family farmland after she offered to sell for $200 per acre. The district court dismissed the claim, concluding there was no valid acceptance and thus no enforceable contract, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The court reasoned that the letter claimed as an acceptance was not absolute, unequivocal, and unconditional because it asked for the exact dollar amount expected and appeared to continue negotiations rather than form a contract without more, and the parties did not mutually assent to identical terms as shown by testimony that Elizabeth would not have agreed to the amount Donald intended to pay.

property

The Garcias purchased a used Cadillac from Overvold Motors that they alleged came with a new-car warranty; after defects appeared, they attempted to reject the vehicle and demanded return of their trade-in and payments, leading to claims of breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud, and misrepresentation. The trial court granted summary judgment to Overvold, but the North Dakota Supreme Court vacated that order. The court reasoned that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether an extended warranty was provided, based on conflicting notations in the buyer's order and installment contract, the seller's disclaimer, and statements in affidavits and depositions that could not be resolved as a matter of law.

procedurebusiness & regulatory