North Dakota Supreme Court Highlights continued ...
court . The Court also ruled it was not obvious error for the district court to grant the motion to reduce sentence without the victim ’ s consideration in absence of a request to participate made by , or on behalf of , the victim .
Ebel v . Engelhart , et al ., 2023 ND 234 . Filed 12 / 15 / 23 .
Engelhart was appointed the personal representative of an estate which owned multiple parcels of real property . Engelhart sent notice soliciting bids from nearby landowners and other known interested parties . Englehart ’ s notice stated bids were due by a certain date when they would be opened at her attorney ’ s office who was overseeing the process .
On the date of the opening of the bids , Gross came to the attorney ’ s office and provided soil maps with numbers next to each parcel of property for sale to the attorney . Gross did not sign the soil maps . The Ebels provided written signed bids to the attorney . The attorney then opened the bids and initially declared the Ebels as the prevailing bidders on various parcels of land . Gross then inquired about his bids . The attorney then declared Gross as the prevailing bidder on all parcels of land as the prices listed on the soil maps were for the highest amount . However , the estate did not enter into any written agreements with Gross or the Ebels .
The Ebels then commenced an action against Engelhart and Gross arguing Gross ’ bid was invalid as it was unsigned and failed to comply with the bidding requirements . After a bench trial , the district court determined the Ebels did not enter into a binding agreement with Engelhart because of the statute of frauds and therefore dismissed their complaint . The Ebels appealed the decision and Gross cross-appealed on the issue . The district court also did not declare him the winner .
The Court determined Engelhart had failed to raise the affirmative defense of the statute of frauds in her answer and therefore she waived her right to rely on it . The Court held that as the affirmative defense of the statute of frauds was not pled , the district court could not rely on it . The matter was sent back to the district court to determine the winning bidder ( s ), if any , as the statute of frauds did not apply .
18 THE GAVEL