North Dakota Supreme Court Highlights continued ...
plea agreement which was not yet accepted and was free to reject it upon hearing from the victims and watching the video . Because the district court was not bound by Fischer ’ s plea , the Court did not err in then rejecting the guilty plea to the reduced charge as part of rejecting the overall plea agreement .
Fischer also argued the district court judge should have recused himself after watching the video and stating the evidence would support a jury finding him guilty on all four counts . However , the Supreme Court rejected this argument as well . The Supreme Court held that because the comments were made before the court empaneled a jury and the jury did not hear or use the comments in its deliberation , the district court did not abuse its discretion by not recusing . The Supreme Court affirmed Fischer ’ s conviction .
Friends of the Rail Bridge ( FORB ) v . N . D . Dept . of Water Res ., 2024 ND 22 . Filed 2 / 8 / 24 .
BNSF Railway Company applied for permits from the Department of Water Resources ( DWR ) to construct a new rail bridge across the Missouri River between Bismarck and Mandan and to remove the existing rail bridge upon the completion of the new bridge . The DWR held public information gathering meetings and received written and oral comments from the public . Thereafter , the DWR determined to grant both permits to BNSF . Friends of the Rail Bridge ( FORB ) did not request an administrative hearing after issuance of the permits . Instead , FORB appealed to the district court . BNSF moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to improper service and FORB ’ s alleged failure to exhaust its administrative remedies . The district court dismissed the appeal on the grounds FORB failed to perfect its appeal because it did not request an administrative hearing and therefore the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction .
The Supreme Court affirmed the district court . The Supreme Court reasoned that N . D . C . C . § 61-03-22 required a person aggrieved by DWR ’ s action or decision to request a hearing within 30 days of the decision . FORB argued a letter it sent to DWR was a request for a hearing and the public meetings held by the DWR constituted the required hearing pursuant to N . D . C . C . § 61-03- 22 . The Supreme Court disagreed because the public meetings were information gathering meetings held pursuant to the North Dakota Administrative Code and were not hearings conducted by the office of administrative hearings under N . D . C . C . Chpt . 28-32 . Additionally , the Supreme Court did not consider the FORB ’ s letter to the DWR to constitute a request for a hearing because it was made prior to DWR ’ s issuance of the permits and , at that time , FORB could not have been an aggrieved party who had a right to a hearing . As FORB did not satisfy the requirements for perfecting an appeal to the district court , the Supreme Court held the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and did not error in dismissing the appeal .
Petro-Hunt v . Tank , 2024 ND 46 . Filed 3 / 18 / 24 .
Tank , individually and as trustee of the Tank Revocable Living Trust , appealed the district court ’ s order granting summary judgment in favor of Petro-Hunt . The Supreme Court concluded the district court properly held that five 1937 assignments burdened Tank ’ s mineral interest in the disputed property , and did not error in holding Tank was not entitled to an accounting under N . D . C . C . § 38-08-09.4 ( 3 ). Petro-Hunt brought this matter as an interpleader action , and additionally sought to quiet title , in part , to quiet title to the minerals in the disputed property , including a 10 % nonparticipating fractional royalty interest that burdened the interest at issue . In his answer and counterclaim , Tank alleged Petro-Hunt improperly assessed him a proportionate 100 % share of costs for drilling and operating the wells at issue .
Tank owned unleased minerals in McKenzie County . Petro-Hunt operates seven oil and gas wells on two pooled spacing units including Tank ’ s minerals . Tank alleged Petro-Hunt wrongly distributed revenues owed from these wells , and he was owed more , based on the 1937 assignments , covering the southwest quarter of the subject property . In affirming the district court , the Supreme Court explained assignments are interpreted in the same manner as contracts , with the primary purpose to determine and effectuate the parties ’ or grantor ’ s intent . That intent is ascertained from the writing alone , if possible , and the language of the contract governs its interpretation if the language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity . When the parties ’ intent can be determined from the contract itself , it presents a question of law , and extrinsic evidence is not admissible to ascertain intent .
When Tank ’ s predecessors executed the 1937 assignments , they conveyed a total 10 % nonparticipating fractional royalty . When Tank succeeded to ownership of the southwest quarter , an oil and gas lease burdened his mineral interests , but that lease expired in 2009 . Tank argued the grant of the royalty interest in the 1937 assignments required a lease to be in effect for granting language in the assignments to be operative . Petro-Hunt disagreed , arguing the assignments conveyed the specific percentages of the oil and gas produced and saved , and the habendum clause did not limit the grant . The Supreme Court agreed with Petro-Hunt , holding the granting clauses in the 1937 assignments did not contain words of limitation , nor a condition on the royalty interests assigned , that tied them to a lease .
Garaas , et al . v . Petro Hunt , 2024 ND 34 . Filed 2 / 22 / 24 .
The Garaas ’ s , as trustees of several trusts , the Garaas Trusts , appealed a district court judgment dismissing their complaint with prejudice related to the allocation of proceeds from a section line oil and gas well between overlapping and underlying spacing
20 THE GAVEL