|9:00am||Monday, June 17, 2013|
Kevin Pifer, Plaintiff and Appellee
Barbara McDermott, Defendant and Appellant
|Appeal from:||Northeast Central Judicial District, Grand Forks County, Judge Lawrence E. Jahnke, 18-2010-CV-01940|
|Nature of Action:||Real Property|
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I. Whether District Court erred in granting partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the purchase option is valid and enforceable.
A. Whether the purchase option was a gift of property.
B. Whether an option is a property right or interest that may be the subject of gift or that may be freely transferred or given like any other property.
C. Whether District Court erred in deciding donative intent.
II. Whether District Court erred in allowing trial to proceed on improper theories of law and then denying Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 50 of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure.
A. The issue of damages was not ripe because until judgment is final Defendant possesses all rights to the land.
B. Plaintiff did not Properly Plead his Claim of Unlawful Interference with Business.
C. Plaintiff's Claim for Interference with Business Fails as a Matter of Law.
III. Whether District Court erred in granting a Temporary Restraining Order that granted plaintiff use and possession of the land before final determination has been made that the land rightfully belongs to plaintiff without weighing the factors necessary to determine whether an injunction was an appropriate remedy.
A. Whether the Court Abused its Discretion in Failing to Weigh Factors Necessary to Determine whether or not Injunctive Relief was Appropriate.
B. Whether the lower court abused its discretion in granting Pifer the right to enter upon and use land that has not yet been made his in a final determination on validity of the purchase option.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
In a free society, is it legally possible for a person of sound mind who has the capacity to outright give the fee title to real property to hire an attorney to give a purchase option in the real property to a natural object of her affections where the optionee had no advance knowledge of, let alone involvement with the purchase option?
Did the district court make a clearly erroneous finding of fact that the purchase option was intended to be a gift?
Is one holding a power of attorney always automatically disqualified from receiving any gift or devise from the one giving the power of attorney, no matter the circumstances?
Did the district court properly grant summary judgment for the optionee where there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever in the record that anything but a gift of the purchase option was intended and where there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever in the record of any prior knowledge of the purchase option by the optionee, let alone any type of overreaching?
Did the jury properly award damages for unlawful interference with business based on a pattern jury instruction requested by both parties, based on clear recent North Dakota Supreme Court precedent and never later objected to by McDermott?
Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 06/30/2013