Pifer v. McDermott

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a judgment awarding Kevin Pifer damages for unlawful interference with business. The court held that a recorded, gratuitous purchase option granted by Dorothy Bevan was a valid and enforceable gift, and that McDermott took the property subject to the option. The court also upheld the jury verdict, denial of judgment as a matter of law, and temporary injunction concerning the property's farming and rental proceeds.

Holdings

1. An option to purchase real property given without consideration is valid and enforceable when it is unconditionally accepted within the prescribed time and was not withdrawn before acceptance.
2. McDermott was a successor to Bevan's property interest and took the interest subject to the recorded purchase option.
3. The district court properly granted summary judgment because McDermott presented no competent evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact concerning Bevan's mental capacity, donative intent, undue influence, coercion, or fraud.
4. Pifer's claim was properly presented because unlawful interference with business is synonymous with interference with economic advantage, and the claim was supported by the governing pattern jury instruction.
5. The district court properly denied McDermott's motion for judgment as a matter of law because the evidence, viewed favorably to Pifer, supported the jury's finding of unlawful interference and its damages award.
6. The district court did not abuse its discretion by continuing the temporary injunction, allowing Pifer to farm or cash-rent the property, and requiring rental proceeds to be deposited with the court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the gratuitous purchase option was valid and enforceable despite Pifer's lack of consideration.
2. Whether McDermott became a successor charged with notice of the recorded option when Bevan transferred the property to herself and McDermott as joint tenants.
3. Whether the district court properly resolved Bevan's donative intent and the validity of the option by summary judgment.
4. Whether Pifer's claim for unlawful interference with business was properly presented despite being captioned in the complaint as intentional interference with economic advantage.
5. Whether the evidence supported the jury's verdict and damages award and whether McDermott was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
6. Whether the district court abused its discretion by continuing a temporary injunction governing farming of the property and deposit of rental proceeds.

Disposition

affirmed