Bullinger Enterprises v. Dahl, et al.

Citation: 2020 ND 63

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Jensen

Areas of Law: Business Law

Bullinger Enterprises, LLLP appealed a district court’s judgment dismissing Bullinger Enterprises’ claims against Howard Dahl, Brian Dahl, and Thor Iverson (collectively, the Dahls). Bullinger Enterprises was owned by Michael Bullinger. In 2001, Bullinger Enterprises, Howard Dahl and Brian Dahl each acquired separate interests in the agricultural equipment manufacturing company Wil-Rich. The Dahls also owned Amity Technology, LLC (Amity). Amity manufactured sugar beet harvesters and air drill seeders. During 2010, Howard was seeking an equity investor to help Amity sell air drill seeders, a new product that had not yet achieved significant sales. Because of the common ownership and operational interactions between Amity and Wil-Rich, Howard asked Michael if he would be interested in having Wil-Rich included in a potential deal. Michael agreed; Howard and Thor Iverson later began negotiations with a potential investor, AGCO Corporation (AGCO). In October 2010, Thor emailed Michael a summary of the negotiations he had with AGCO which proposed a joint venture. Following the exchange of ownership, Amity entirely owned Wil-Rich and the prior owners of Wil-Rich owned an interest in Amity. Amity transferred its air drill seeder business to Wil-Rich. The joint venture between Amity and AGCO moved forward with Amity selling 50% of the Wil-Rich stock to AGCO for $30 million. Wil-Rich was then renamed AGCO-Amity JV, LLC, a joint venture owned by Amity and AGCO. By January 2012, Michael became concerned about the AGCO-Amity JV, LCC operations, specifically that the air drill seeder sales were under performing while the Wil-Rich related sales were over performing. In July 2018, Bullinger Enterprises commenced this action alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duties and deceit. All the claims arise from Bullinger Enterprises’ allegation that the Dahls misrepresented to him that AGCO set the value of Wil-Rich at $20 million and AGCO was not willing to value Wil-Rich any higher. Bullinger Enterprises claimed the misrepresentations led to a misallocation of the ownership of Amity following the exchange of the ownership of Wil-Rich for ownership in Amity. Bullinger Enterprises argued the district court erred in concluding its claims accrued no later than the end of March 2012 and, as a result, the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment.

Big Pines v. Baker, et al.

Citation: 2020 ND 64

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Gerald W. VandeWalle

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Contracts, Landlord - Tenant

Big Pines, LLC, appealed from a district court order denying its “Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.” Phoenix M.D., L.L.C., as landlord, entered into a lease agreement for real property with Biron D. Baker Family Medicine PC, as tenant, on May 3, 2011. The lease began on June 15, 2011, and ended on June 14, 2016. At the same time the lease was entered, Biron Baker signed a personal guaranty agreement making him personally liable for a breach of the terms of the lease. Under the guaranty, the landlord was also entitled to recover “all costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in attempting to realize upon [the guaranty].” In August 2016, Big Pines, LLC purchased the property formerly leased by Baker Medicine from Phoenix. The guaranty agreement was not specifically mentioned in the assignment agreement. However, the assignment stated a copy of the “Lease Agreement” was attached to the assignment as “Exhibit A.” In March 2017, Big Pines contacted Baker regarding damages to the property in violation of the terms of the lease that resulted from Baker Medicine’s tenancy. Baker denied any responsibility and refused to pay for the alleged damages. Big Pines filed suit against Baker and Baker Medicine in February 2018 claiming the property damages resulted from Baker Medicine’s tenancy and were in violation of the terms of the lease. The case proceeded to trial, and at trial a jury found Baker and Baker Medicine liable for breaching the terms of the lease and awarded $18,750.00 in damages to Big Pines. Big Pines filed a post-trial motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(e)(3) requesting the district court award Big Pines its attorney’s fees for having to bring suit against Baker and Baker Medicine for breaching the terms of the lease. Finding that the district court erred in interpreting the lease and guaranty as separate agreements, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the district court which denied the attorneys' fees.

Caster v. North Dakota

Citation: 2020 ND 61

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Gerald W. VandeWalle

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Lekemia D’Andre Caster appealed from a district court order summarily denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2015, Caster pleaded guilty to two counts of child neglect or abuse and was sentenced to eighteen months’ probation. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court failed to explain its reasoning in its order. The matter was therefore remanded for further proceedings.

North Dakota v. Cook

Citation: 2020 ND 69

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Jerod E. Tufte

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In early April 2019, Berthold Police Chief Allen Schmidt and Reserve Officer Greg Pinske stopped a car driven by Richard Cook for an unilluminated license plate. At the time of the stop, Pinske was not a licensed peace officer. Officer Pinske approached the car and obtained Cook’s driver’s license. Officer Pinske returned to the squad car with Cook’s license. Officer Pinske did not report to Chief Schmidt that he observed any suspicious behavior by Cook during the initial encounter. Officer Pinske ran a records check using Cook’s driver’s license, which revealed Cook had a 2016 drug conviction. At that point, Chief Schmidt took over the traffic stop. Chief Schmidt approached Cook’s vehicle and explained to Cook that he was performing drug interdiction that evening. Chief Schmidt asked Cook if he could search his car. Cook refused. Chief Schmidt then ordered Cook out of the car so he could perform a canine sniff around the car. The canine alerted to drugs in the car; Cook would ultimately be arrested and charged with several offenses. The State of North Dakota appealed after a district court granted Cook's motion suppressing evidence from the initial stop. Because the district court properly concluded Chief Schmidt’s seizure of Cook was not justified by reasonable suspicion, the Supreme Court affirmed suppression.

North Dakota v. Eggleston

Citation: 2020 ND 68

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Jensen

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Alex Eggleston appealed a district court’s amended judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Eggleston argued there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find him guilty of murder. Eggleston also contended his sentence was illegal because N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-09.1 and N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 51, which applied to his sentencing, were unconstitutionally vague, and because the district court improperly calculated his life expectancy. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s amended judgment in part, reverse in part, and remand for recalculation of Eggleston’s life expectancy. The Supreme Court determined the district court did not err in dismissing Eggleston’s motion for an acquittal because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict Eggleston of murder and for the jury to conclude he was not acting in self-defense. Thus, the district court’s judgment of conviction was affirmed. However, the district court referenced an incorrect life table to compute Eggleston’s remaining life expectancy, thus, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s amended judgment, and remanded to the district court for a proper computation of Eggleston’s remaining life expectancy consistent with N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 51.

Interest of A.P.D.S.P.-G.

Citation: 2020 ND 72

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Lisa K. Fair McEvers

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Family Law, Government & Administrative Law

T.P.-G. appealed the termination of her parental rights. On appeal, T.P.-G. argued she was denied due process and the juvenile court erred by denying her request to appear by telephone. A petition for involuntary termination of parental rights to a child, A.P.D.S.P.-G., was filed in the juvenile court. After a trial date was set, the mother, T.P.-G, filed a request to appear by phone because she lived in Wisconsin. The court denied the request. At trial, counsel stated T.P.-G. wished to contest the termination, regardless of whether she was able to attend the trial. Counsel stated T.P.-G. regretted being unable to attend, but T.P.-G. was saving her money to travel to see A.P.D.S.P.-G. for his birthday. After trial, the juvenile court found A.P.D.S.P.-G. was a deprived and abandoned child and terminated T.P.-G.’s parental rights to the child. Finding no due process violation, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed termination.

Lakeview Excavating, Inc. v. Dickey County, et al.

Citation: 2020 ND 67

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Jerod E. Tufte

Areas of Law: Contracts, Government & Administrative Law, Government Contracts

Lakeview Excavating appealed a district court judgment dismissing its complaint against Dickey County and German Township (Defendants) for breach of contract, intentional fraud, and misrepresentation. In spring 2012, the Defendants awarded to Lakeview three road construction project contracts funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The parties executed three identical contracts, one for each project. The contracts required Lakeview to provide the necessary documents to satisfy FEMA requirements for funding. Lakeview had to use more material than was listed in the bid documents to complete the projects. Some of the material used by Lakeview was taken from private property without permission and resulted in litigation against Lakeview. Lakeview completed the road construction projects in August 2012. In October 2016, Lakeview sued the Defendants for breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, and unlawful interference with business. The court ruled Lakeview breached its contracts with the Defendants, and held Lakeview’s tort claims against the Defendants were barred by the statute of limitations. Lakeview appealed, but finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.

Martodam v. Martodam

Citation: 2020 ND 70

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Jerod E. Tufte

Areas of Law: Family Law

Jason Martodam appealed an amended divorce judgment and an order denying his motions for contempt and to amend the amended judgment. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in entering the interim order, denying his ex parte motion, and denying his motions for sanctions. The Court concluded the court did not err in awarding primary residential responsibility to Crystal Martodam and did not abuse its discretion in not holding her in contempt and in excluding exhibits that he had offered. Furthermore, the Supreme Court concluded the court did not err in failing to order a parenting investigator and in calculating child support. The trial court erred in allowing the minor children to decide whether to have parenting time. The amended judgment was affirmed as modified, as was the subsequent order denying the motions.

Messmer v. Messmer

Citation: 2020 ND 62

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Jensen

Areas of Law: Family Law

Robert and Clare Messmer were married in 1984. During the marriage, Robert actively engaged in farming and ranching. Clare helped with the farming and ranching activities as well as working outside the home. Clare initiated divorce proceedings in 2016. A trial was held in May 2018, with a judgment entered in August 2018. Robert appeal the amended divorce judgment and order granting a new trial. He argued the district court erred in the inclusion of 320 acres of property in the marital estate, the valuation and distribution of the parties’ property, the denial of an award of spousal support, and the denial of an award of attorney fees. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s inclusion of the 320 acres in the marital estate, reversed the district court’s valuation of the 320 acres, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Haas, et al. v. Hudson & Wylie LLP, et al.

Citation: 2020 ND 65

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Jerod E. Tufte

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

Gary Haas, Brenda Haas, and the estate of Jenny Haas appealed a district court judgment dismissing their complaint against Hudson & Wylie LLP and its agents Terry Hudson, Doreen Hudson, and Luann Wiley. The Haases and Hudson & Wiley LLP owned adjacent parcels of land in Rolette County, North Dakota. All property at issue in this case was once owned by W.A. Lawston. Lawston partitioned the land and conveyed a parcel to Edwin Haas in 1962, and he conveyed the adjacent parcel to Raymond Hudson in 1968. Edwin's parcel was conveyed to Jenny in 2004, and Raymond's parcel was conveyed to Hudson & Wiley LLP in 2006. A 2.19-acre parcel and a 3.5-acre parcel of the Hudson property lie north of the road adjacent to the Haas property. The Haases used the 2.19-acre and 3.5-acre portions of the Hudson property north of the road for grazing cattle and cutting hay since the early 1960s. In April 2018, the Haases filed a complaint in district court alleging adverse possession, acquiescence, trespass, and willful damage to property. The district court found that Gary's use of the land was permissive, the court concluded the Haases had not adversely possessed the property because their use and possession of the parcels was not hostile. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in admitting hearsay testimony central to its decision, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Matter of Hogen Trust B

Citation: 2020 ND 71

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Lisa K. Fair McEvers

Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates

Rodney Hogen appealed an order denying his motion and an order terminating a trust. He argued on appeal he should have received additional funds from the Trust. Specifically, Rodney argued the district court’s previous order, and the North Dakota Supreme Court’s opinion affirming the order, permitted only $208,000, and no additional funds, to be taken from his share. Rodney argued the prior order was binding and the order by the court denying his motion impermissibly changed the meaning of the prior order. Rodney also argues the court erred in terminating the Trust. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.