Spitzer v. Bartelson

20090124 Harold Spitzer, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Neil R. Bartelson and
Delila Bartelson, Defendants and Appellees

Appeal from: District Court, Northwest Judicial District, Mountrail County
Judge William W. McLees
Nature of Action: Contracts
Counsel:
Appellant: Kent A. Reierson
Appellee: Bruce A. Selinger
Term: 09/2009   Argument: 09/08/2009  2:45pm
ND cite: 2009 ND 179
NW cite: 773 N.W.2d 798

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
The district court erred, as a matter of law, when it admitted and relied upon inadmissible parol evidence and hearsay testimony to change the terms of an uncontested contract for deed, containing a mineral reservation, and determine that the quit claim deed, without a mineral reservation, expressed the intent of the parties.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Did the Trial Court err in when it determined that the Quit Claim Deed which George Spitzer delivered to Neil and Delila Bartelson in satisfaction of the antecedent Contract for Deed expressed the true intentions of the parties as to the minerals?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF ISSUES: 1. The district court erred, as a matter of law, when it admitted and relied upon inadmissible parol evidence and hearsay testimony to change the terms of an uncontested contract for deed, containing a mineral reservation, and determine that the quit claim deed, without a mineral reservation, expressed the intent of the parties.
2. John Bartelson's Hearsay Testimony Was Inadmissible.
3. The uncontested contract for deed containing a clear and unambiguous mineral reservation is the only admissible parol evidence, and therefore is clear and convincing.
Add Docket 20090124 RSS Add Docket 20090124 RSS

Docket entries:
104/15/2009 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 04/08/2009
204/15/2009 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 04/08/2009
304/16/2009 RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 05/28/2009
405/07/2009 TRANSCRIPT DATED December 9, 2008
505/07/2009 DISK - TRA of 12-09-08
605/19/2009 RECORD ON APPEAL (not rec'd entry no. 44)
706/16/2009 APPELLANT BRIEF (e-filed) PDF
806/16/2009 E-FILED BRIEF (ATB) PDF
906/16/2009 APPELLANT APPENDIX (e-filed) PDF
1006/16/2009 E-FILED APPENDIX (ATA) PDF
1106/19/2009 Received $25 e-filing surcharge for ATB & ATA (Receipt #18891).
1206/29/2009 Received 7 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating.
1306/29/2009 Received 6 copies of ATA from Central Duplicating.
1407/09/2009 APPELLEE BRIEF (e-filed) PDF
1507/09/2009 E-FILED BRIEF (AEB) PDF
1607/10/2009 Received $25 e-filing surcharge for AEB (Receipt #18918).
1707/16/2009 Received 7 copies of AEB from Central Duplicating
1807/17/2009 REPLY BRIEF
1907/17/2009 E-FILED BRIEF
2007/23/2009 Received 7 copies of RYB from CSD
2107/23/2009 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT MAILED
2209/08/2009 APPEARANCES: Kent Reierson/Bruce Selinger
2309/08/2009 ARGUED: Reierson/Selinger
2409/08/2009 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2510/13/2009 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
2610/13/2009 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Kapsner
2710/13/2009 Costs on Appeal taxed in favor of Appellees
2810/14/2009 Judgment Sent to Parties
2911/05/2009 MANDATE
3011/09/2009 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 09/02/2014