Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a judgment quieting title to an undivided one-half interest in disputed mineral rights in favor of James and Betty Van Berkom. The court held that the parties seeking reformation did not prove a mutual mistake by clear, satisfactory, specific, and convincing evidence, and that the trial court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. The court also held that an objection concerning judicial notice was not properly preserved and, in any event, any error was harmless.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court clearly erred in finding that the Cordonniers failed to prove a mutual mistake sufficient to justify reformation of the warranty deed.
- Whether the trial court erred by taking judicial notice of the practice of mineral leasing in North Dakota when the Cordonniers did not properly preserve an objection.
- Whether any error concerning judicial notice affected the Cordonniers' substantial rights or prejudiced the outcome.
Holdings
- The Cordonniers were not entitled to reformation because they failed to prove by clear, satisfactory, specific, and convincing evidence that both parties intended the warranty deed to say something different from what it said.
- The trial court's factual finding regarding mutual mistake was not clearly erroneous.
- The judicial-notice issue was not properly preserved because the Cordonniers did not request an opportunity to be heard or make a sufficiently specific objection; in any event, any error was harmless because they did not show that a substantial right was affected or that the outcome was prejudiced.
Key quotations
“Parol evidence of an alleged mutual mistake as a basis for the modification of a written instrument must be clear, satisfactory, specific and convincing, and a court of equity will not grant the high remedy of reformation even upon a mere preponderance of the evidence, but only upon the certainty of error.” (807 N.W.2d at 805)
“The law requires a trial court to presume a properly executed instrument correctly states a party’s intention.” (807 N.W.2d at 806)
Factual background
In 1979, James and Betty Van Berkom purchased real estate under a contract for deed containing a mineral reservation clause. After the contract payments were completed, Garoldine Van Berkom conveyed the property by a 1995 warranty deed that omitted a mineral reservation. When the discrepancy became apparent in 2008, the Van Berkoms claimed the mineral rights under the warranty deed, while the Cordonniers claimed the deed should be reformed based on mutual mistake.
Procedural history
James and Betty Van Berkom brought an action to quiet title after both sides sought to lease the disputed mineral interests. The Cordonniers countered that the 1995 warranty deed contained a mutual mistake and sought reformation to conform the deed to the earlier contract for deed. After a trial, the court quieted title in favor of the Van Berkoms and denied reformation; the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.