Locken v. Locken

20100297 David Locken, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Loren Locken as Trustee of the
Virgil and Marjorie Locken Family
Trust under the Trust Agreement
dated December 27, 2002; Jon Locken
and Loren Locken as Co-Personal
Representatives of the Marjorie Locken
Estate; Jon Locken and Loren Locken, as
Co-Personal Representatives of the
Virgil K. Locken Estate; Jon Locken, Inc.;
Loren W. Locken, Inc.; Jon Locken;
Loren Locken; Bernard Vculek as Trustee of
the Bernard L. Vculek Revocable Trust;
Marlene Vculek as Trustee of the Marlene
Vculek Revocable Trust; and the unknown
spouses, the unknown heirs, administrators,
executors, successors, devisees, legatees,
assigns and personal representatives of any
kind of all of the above named defendants,
and all other persons unknown claiming any
rights, title or interest in, or lien or
encumberance upon the property described
in the Complaint, Defendants and Appellees

Appeal from: District Court, Southeast Judicial District, Dickey County
Judge John E. Greenwood
Nature of Action: Real Property
Counsel:
Appellant: Sara Kaye Sorenson
Appellee: Michael D. McNair
Term: 01/2011   Argument: 01/10/2011  10:00am
ND cite: 2011 ND 90
NW cite: 797 N.W.2d 301

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Listen to recording of oral argument in RM format
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
Does the term "due date," as that term is used in N.D.C.C.  28-01-42, mean the date the last payment on the contract for deed was due, or does it mean the date the last payment was actually paid?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Does the term "due date," as that term is used in N.D.C.C.  28-01-42, mean the date the last payment on the Contract for Deed was due, or does it mean the date the last payment was actually paid?
2. Does N.D.C.C.  28-01-15(2) prohibit David Locken's claim?

Add Docket 20100297 RSS Add Docket 20100297 RSS

Docket entries:
109/16/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 09/13/2010
210/08/2010 APPELLANT BRIEF (e-filed)
310/08/2010 E-FILED BRIEF (ATB)
410/08/2010 APPELLANT APPENDIX (e-filed)
510/08/2010 E-FILED APPENDIX (ATA)
610/11/2010 Received $25 surcharge for ATB (Receipt #20004)
710/13/2010 Received 7 copies of ATB from CSD
810/13/2010 Received 6 copies of ATA from CSD
910/13/2010 RECORD ON APPEAL (electronic 1-87)
1010/28/2010 STATEMENT: Response to Appealability issue received
1111/09/2010 APPELLEE BRIEF (electronic)
1211/09/2010 E-FILED BRIEF (AEB)
1311/09/2010 Rec'd $25.00 AEB e-file surcharge fee. (receipt no. 20046)
1411/12/2010 Rec'd 7 copies of AEB back from Central Duplicating.
1511/23/2010 REPLY BRIEF (e-filed)
1611/23/2010 E-FILED BRIEF (RYB)
1711/24/2010 Received 7 copies of RYB from Central Duplicating.
1812/13/2010 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
1912/06/2010 Rec'd corrected page 7 for AEB - cc made by this office and distributed
2001/10/2011 APPEARANCES: Sara K. Sorenson; Michael D. McNair
2101/10/2011 ARGUED: Sara K. Sorenson; Michael D. McNair
2201/10/2011 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2305/11/2011 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
2405/11/2011 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Crothers, Daniel John
2505/11/2011 Costs on Appeal taxed in favor of Appellees
2605/12/2011 Judgment Sent to Parties
2706/08/2011 MANDATE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 08/01/2014