Larson v. Norheim
and Renee L. Larson, Plaintiffs and Appellants
v.
Thelma Larson Norheim, Hans Norheim,
Birgit Norheim Oyen, Kjellaug Norheim,
Harald Tettum, Inge Oyen Norheim, Olav
Oyen, and all other persons unknown
claiming any estate or interest in, or lien or
encumbrance upon the property described in
the Complaint, whether as heirs, devisees,
legatees, or personal representatives of any of
the above named persons who may be
deceased, or under any other title or interest, Defendants and Appellees
Judge David W. Nelson
| Appellant: | Elizabeth Ledgerwood Pendlay | |
| Appellee: | Harry Malcolm Pippin | |
| Appellee: | Charlotte Jo Skar |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
I. The district court erred in determining that the Larson family had a statutory requirement to engage in reasonable inquiry under Section 38-18.1-06, N.D.C.C., and, even if such a requirement exists under the statute, this statutory element was met by the Larson family.
II. The district court erred as a matter of law when it failed to address whether a mineral abandonment proceeding necessarily creates a reversionary interest in real property and further erred as a matter of law in finding the Defendants' Statement of Claim was adequate to prevent the lapse of the mineral interests at issue.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
[1] I. The District Court correctly decided that the Plaintiffs/Appellants (hereafter "Larsons") were required by statute to engage in a reasonable inquiry to locate and notify the owners of the mineral interests, and correctly found that the Larsons failed their duty of a reasonable inquiry.
[2] II. The District Court correctly decided the Defendants/Appellees, Thelma Larson Norheim, Hans Norheim, Birgit Norheim Oyen, Kjellaug Norheim, Harald Tettum, Olav Oyen (hereafter "Norheim Heirs") preserved their ownership in the mineral interests that are the subject of this action and avoided lapse by filing an adequate and timely Statement of Claim.
Add Docket 20120236 RSS