Trulson, et al. v. Meiers, et al.
- Curtis R. Trulson and Lesley D. Trulson, Plaintiffs and Appellants
John Anthony Meiers, Jean R. Meiers,
Evan J. Meiers and Lauren B. Meiers, Defendants and Appellees
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : OIL, GAS AND MINERALS
- Appeal From
Case No. 2017-CV-00088
North Central Judicial District, Mountrail County
Todd L. Cresap
Parties' Statement of Issues
The District Court erred in determining that the royalty deed dated June 28, 1982 was not a valid conveyance of a royalty interest in minerals in and under the subject property, and in quieting title in those mineral interests in the Defendants.
A. The District Court did not consider parole evidence and properly concluded the subject royalty deed was not delivered.
B. The District Court property applied the law to conveyance in quieting title of the subject property in favor of the Meiers in not applying or considering the Duhig Rule.
C. The District Court did not err in quieting title to the subject property in all defendants based on Plaintiff’s failure to establish delivery by a preponderance of the evidence.
Curtis and Lesley Trulson appeal after the district court ruled a deed from John and Jean Meiers did not convey a mineral royalty interest to the Trulsons.
In January 1982, the Meiers sold a quarter of land in Mountrail County to the Trulsons. The deed from the Meiers stated no minerals were conveyed to the Trulsons. At the time of the conveyance, the Meiers owned a royalty interest in one-half of the minerals under the property. In a June 1982 royalty deed, the Meiers conveyed one-half of their royalty interest in the minerals to the Trulsons. The royalty deed was not notarized and was not recorded until December 2008.
In April 2017, the Trulsons sued the Meiers claiming an interest in the Meiers’ mineral royalty interest. The Trulsons argued the Meiers conveyed a mineral royalty interest under the royalty deed. The Meiers argued that because the royalty deed was not notarized, it was not a valid conveyance. The Meiers also claimed they did not remember delivering the deed to the Trulsons. After a bench trial, the district court ruled the royalty deed was not a valid conveyance of a mineral royalty interest.
On appeal, the Trulsons argue the district court’s decision relating to the royalty deed was wrong.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||02/01/2019||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 02/01/2019|
|2||02/01/2019||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 02/06/2019|
|3||02/06/2019||Rec'd $125 filing fee|
|4||02/07/2019||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|5||02/07/2019||Notice served on Erich M. Grant, Jon W. Backes and Erin M. Conroy|
|6||02/28/2019||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED FEBRUARY 27, 2019 (ENTRY NOS. 1-26, 28-109)|
|7||03/05/2019||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED AUGUST 21, 2018|
|8||03/05/2019||C.O.S. OF TRANSCRIPT|
|9||04/10/2019||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|10||04/10/2019||E-mail from Appellee's Counsel - no obejection to extension|
|11||04/10/2019||ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 05/13/2019|
|13||05/16/2019||Oral Argument Request by Appellant|
|15||05/16/2019||Rec'd $52.00 for ATA (104 extra pages) (receipt #27067)|
|16||05/20/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of ATB back from Central Duplicating|
|17||05/20/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of ATA back from Central Duplicating|
|18||05/20/2019||Rec'd $25.00 for ATB e-filing surcharge (receipt #27076)|
|20||06/17/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of AEB from CSD|
|21||06/19/2019||Rec'd $25 e-filing surcharge for AEB|
|23||06/27/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of RYB from Central Duplicating|
|24||08/02/2019||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|