Dakota Heritage Bank v. Pankonin
Dakota Heritage Bank, Plaintiff and Appellee
Michael J. Iaccone, Trustee for the
Willard L. Pankonin bankruptcy estate,
Christi J. Pankonin, a/k/a Kristi J.
Pankonin, Laverle Carstensen,
Paul Modell, Marjorie Modell,
and Punchco, Inc., Defendants
Christi J. Pankonin, Appellant
Ralph Rivinius and LorRaine
Rivinius, Interested Parties
Southeast Judicial District,
Judge Sonna M. Anderson
|Nature of Action:||Foreclosure|
|Term:||12/2012  Argument: 12/19/2012|
|ND cite:||2013 ND 15|
828 N.W.2d 546
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I. Did the lower court abuse its discretion in its Order by rejecting the landowner's argument that a Notice Before Foreclosure must be filed with the court by the plaintiff Bank in a foreclosure by summary judgment decision as mandated under North Dakota law?
II. Under North Dakota law, NDCC 32-19-20, did the trial court misapply the law by determining that the Notice(s) Before Foreclosure met the statutory requirements for the contents of the Notices, when they were not filed with the Complaint and the contents are vague and ambiguous?
III. Was the lower court's decision to deny the argument of its lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a summary judgment a misapplication of the law when no Answer was filed by the landowner (but was ordered to be filed sua sponte by the court after a Rule 60 motion) and the bank claimed the Answer was filed in its motion for summary judgment?
IV. Did the lower court abuse its discretion in determining that the sheriff's sale met the standards of the law where the advertisement for the sale of over 2,000 acres of farmland was offered as one parcel in the ad for approximately $850,000, but was actually sold as three parcels at the sheriff's sale with two major parcels (1,500 acres) sold to the foreclosing bank and then to its bank holding company, a North Dakota corporation?
V. Was the lower court misapplying the law in awarding attorney fees to the Bank's attorney and not to the Landowner's attorney, where the Landowner's attorney had to defend against a frivolous motion in federal bankruptcy court, which was also filed in Logan County in a motion to continue a Rule 60 motion, to effectively end the employment of the Trustee's attorney because attorney Lamb ".flunked [the bar exam] four times.", as asserted both in the bank's motion to vacate in federal bankruptcy court and in its motion for continuance in North Dakota district court?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1.Did Judge Anderson abuse her discretion by refusing to vacate a final judgment of foreclosure where the appellant was represented by prominent counsel all along the way when the land has been sold at Sheriff's Sales and all conveyed by recorded Sheriff's Deeds to third parties, one of whom was not even a party to the original foreclosure action?
2.Have the orders confirming the Sheriff's Sales on foreclosure become final, making impossible any relief from the foreclosure judgment itself?
3.Is Judge Anderson's Order on Request for Sanctions final and non-appealable?
4.If Judge Anderson's Order on Request for Sanctions not become final, did she abuse her discretion in awarding Rule 11 Sanctions against opposing counsel for $2,100.00? The appeal is ripe for summary affirmance before or after oral argument. N.D.R.App.P 34(a)(2) and 35.1(a).
|Add Docket 20120335 RSS|
|1||08/28/2012 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 08/07/2012|
|2||08/28/2012 ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 08/27/2012 (ENTRY NOS.1-152)|
|3||08/29/2012 1st AMENDED FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL|
|4||08/29/2012 ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 08/29/2012 (ENTRY NOS.153-154)|
|5||09/06/2012 ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 2012 (ENTRY NOS. 155 & 156)|
|6||09/11/2012 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|7||09/11/2012 E-FILED MOTION|
|8||09/11/2012 ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 10/16/2012|
|9||09/14/2012 MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL. RspDue: 10/01/2012|
|10||09/14/2012 E-FILED MOTION|
|11||09/18/2012 Response Filed|
|12||09/26/2012 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied|
|13||10/16/2012 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|14||10/16/2012 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|15||10/16/2012 DISK - ATB (e-mailed)|
|16||10/23/2012 ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning|
|17||10/29/2012 Envelope addressed to Laverle Carstensen returned with new forwarding address. Letter dated|
|18||10/29/2012 10-22-12 resent to new address.)|
|19||11/15/2012 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|20||11/15/2012 E-FILED BRIEF|
|21||11/15/2012 APPELLEE APPENDIX|
|22||11/15/2012 E-FILED APPENDIX|
|23||11/19/2012 Received $56.50 e-filing surcharge for AEB & AEA (Receipt #21585)|
|24||11/19/2012 Received 7 copies of AEB from Central Duplicating|
|25||11/19/2012 Received 6 copies of AEA from Central Duplicating|
|26||11/20/2012 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|27||11/20/2012 SITTING WITH THE COURT: Hodny, William F.|
|28||11/28/2012 REPLY BRIEF (PDF)|
|29||11/28/2012 E-FILED BRIEF|
|30||11/29/2012 Received 7 copies of RYB from CSD|
|31||11/30/2012 Received $25 surcharge for RYB (Receipt #21600)|
|32||12/19/2012 APPEARANCES: Timothy Lamb/Roger Minch|
|33||12/19/2012 ARGUED: T. Lamb/Minch|
|34||12/19/2012 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|35||01/28/2013 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED BY SUMMARY DISP.|
|36||01/28/2013 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Per Curiam|
|37||01/28/2013 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee|
|38||01/30/2013 Judgment Sent to Parties|
|39||02/11/2013 PETITION FOR REHEARING (PDF)|
|40||02/11/2013 E-FILED BRIEF (PDF)|
|41||02/12/2013 Rcv'd nonsubstantive corrections to PER (TOC para #'d, pg brks)|
|42||02/12/2013 DISK-PER (e-mailed)|
|43||02/15/2013 Rcv'd 7 copies of PER from CSD|
|44||03/01/2013 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied|