20180169 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OCTOBER 4, 2018 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA Teresa L. Larson, Janet F. Schelling, Supreme Court No. and Lynette A. Helgeson, 20180169 Plaintiffs and Appellees, vs. District Court No. 05-2015-CV-00145 Jon Tonneson, Mary Issendorf, in her personal capacity and in her capacity as the personal representative of the Estate PLAINTIFFS AND of Vesper Shirley, the Estate of Vesper APPELLEES’ BRIEF IN Shirley, and all other persons interested SUPPORT OF AFFIRMING either as heirs, creditors, or otherwise, THE DISTRICT COURT’S in the estates of the above-mentioned JUDGMENT persons or entities, and all other persons unknown, claiming any interest in or encumbrance upon the property described in the Complaint, Defendants and Appellants, APPEAL FROM THE BOTTINEAU COUNTY DISTRICT COURT’S MAY 4, 2018 JUDGMENT James A. Teigland (ND ID 7895) FREMSTAD LAW FIRM P. O. Box 3143 Fargo, North Dakota 58108-3143 Phone: (701) 478-7620 E-Service: [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES [¶ 1] TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph Number Table of Contents .................................................................................................. ¶ 1 Table of Authorities ............................................................................................... ¶ 2 Statement of the Issues .......................................................................................... ¶ 3 Statement of the Case ............................................................................................ ¶ 6 Statement of Facts ............................................................................................... ¶ 11 I. 1950s to 1970s ................................................................................... ¶ 14 II. 1970s to Present. ................................................................................ ¶ 22 III. Plaintiffs’ use, improvement, and maintenance of the Quiet Title Property summarized ........................................................ ¶ 32 IV.The District Court’s findings .............................................................. ¶ 40 Argument ............................................................................................................. ¶ 42 I. Whether the district court clearly erred when it concluded no public entity ever took possession of the Platted Roadway ................................................................................. ¶ 43 A. Standard of Review ............................................................. ¶ 43 B. The district court reasonably concluded the Platted Roadway did not become a public right of way ........................................................................ ¶ 44 II. Whether the district court clearly erred when it concluded the Plaintiffs adversely possessed the Quiet Title Property. ..................................................................................... ¶ 55 A. Standard of Review ............................................................. ¶ 55 B. The district court did not err when it concluded the Plaintiffs usually cultivated 1 and improved the Quiet Title Property .............................. ¶ 56 C. The district court did not err when it concluded the Plaintiffs have “actually occupied” the entire Quiet Title Property .......................... ¶ 63 D. The district court did not err when it concluded the Plaintiffs have continuously occupied and usually cultivated and improved the Tonneson Triangle ....................................... ¶ 68 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... ¶ 74 Certificate of Compliance.................................................................................... ¶ 76 Certificate of Service ........................................................................................... ¶ 79 2 [¶ 2] TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Paragraph Number Anderson v. Cold Spring Tungsten, Inc., 458 P.2d 756 (Colo. 1969) .............................................................................................. ¶ 66 Benson v. Feland Bros. Properties, 2018 ND 29, 906 N.W.2d 98 .................................................................................. ¶¶ 55, 59, 64 Benson v. Taralseth, 382 N.W.2d 649 (N.D. 1986) ..........................¶¶ 57, 60 Booten v. Peterson, 47 Wash.2d 565, 288 P.2d 1084 (1955) ....................................................................................................... ¶ 72 Burckhardt v. Smith, 115 N.W.2d 540 (Wis. 1960) .........................¶¶ 66, 72 Chaplin v. Sanders, 100 Wn.2d 853, 676 P.2d 431 (1984) ...................... ¶ 72 City of Jamestown v. Miemietz, 95 N.W.2d 897, 902 (N.D. 1959) ........................................................................................¶¶ 45, 46 City of Tonawanda v. Ellicott Creek Homeowners Ass’n, 86 A.D.2d 118, 449 N.Y.S.2d 116 (1982) ............................................... ¶ 61 Goss v. Trombly, 39 A.D.3d 1128 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) ...................... ¶ 61 Hayward v. Marker, 55 N.W.2d 143 (Mich. 1952) .................................. ¶ 66 Holmquist v. King County, 328 P.3d 1000 (Wash. App. 2014) ......................................................................................................... ¶ 50 Howard v. Kunto, 3 Wn. App. 393, 477 P.2d 210 (1970) ....................... ¶ 72 Ill. Steel Co. v. Jeka, 123 Wis. 419, 101 N.W. 399 (Wis. 1904) ......................................................................................................... ¶ 66 James v. Griffin, 2001 ND 90, 626 N.W.2d 704...............................¶¶ 52, 53 Jutting v. Hendrix, 606 N.W.2d 140 (S.D. 2000) .................................... ¶ 61 Kay v. Biggs, 13 Ariz.App. 172, 475 P.2d 1 (1970) ................................ ¶ 72 Laabs v. Bolger, 25 Wis.2d 17, 130 N.W.2d 270 (1964) ......................... ¶ 61 3 Moore v. Musa, 198 So.2d 843 (Fla. 1967) ............................................. ¶ 66 Nechtow v. Brown, 369 Mich. 460, 120 N.W.2d 251 (1963) ....................................................................................................... ¶ 72 Savre v. Santoyo, 2015 ND 170, 865 N.W.2d 419 .................................. ¶ 43 Schultz v. Dew, 564 N.W.2d 320 (S.D. 1997) ......................................... ¶ 61 Smith v. Hayden, 772 P.2d 47 (Colo. 1989) .....................................¶¶ 64, 66 Torgerson v. Rose, 339 N.W.2d 79 (N.D. 1983) ..................................... ¶ 60 Welsh v. Monson, 79 N.W.2d 155 (N.D. 1956) .................. ¶¶ 44, 47, 50, 51 Statutes N.D.C.C. § 28-01-11 ...................................................... ¶¶ 55, 56, 57, 60, 68 4 [¶ 3] STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES [¶ 4] 1. Whether the district court clearly erred when it concluded no public entity ever took possession of the Platted Roadway. [¶ 5] 2. Whether the district court clearly erred when it concluded the Plaintiffs adversely possessed the Quiet Title Property. [¶ 6] STATEMENT OF THE CASE [¶ 7] On December 11, 2015, Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit against Defendants. Sheriff’s Return, Doc. Id. #7. The Complaint requested title to lake property on Lake Metigoshe in Bottineau County (the “Property”) be quieted in Plaintiffs as to Defendants’ claims, that Defendants set forth all of their adverse claims to the Property and that Defendants be decreed to have no estate or interest in, or lien or encumbrance upon the Property. [¶ 8] On October 14, 2016, Plaintiffs moved to file an Amended Complaint that included claims for the doctrine of agreed boundaries, the doctrine of acquiescence, the doctrine of estoppel, and a claim for a prescriptive easement. Notice of Mot. And Mot. to Amend Complaint, Doc. Id. #27-28. On January 11, 2017 the Court granted Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint. Doc. Id. #52. [¶ 9] On February 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Notice of Motion and Mot. for Summary Judgment, Doc. Id. #69-70. On April 24, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. Id. #129. 5 [¶ 10] On April 27 and 28, 2017, the Court held a trial in this matter. On December 28, 2017, the district court ordered a judgment quieting title to the Property in the Plaintiffs. Doc. Id. #201. On March 2, 2018, the district court made its findings and ordered judgment be entered. Doc. Id. #217-218. On May 4, 2018, the Clerk issued a final judgment. Doc. Id. #235. On May 8, 2018, the Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal. Doc. Id. #236. [¶ 11] STATEMENT OF FACTS [¶ 12] This action involves real estate in and near the Larson’s Beach Subdivision, in Section 11, of Roland Township, Bottineau County, North Dakota. Specifically, the Plaintiffs successfully quieted title to a piece of real property described in Paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint (App. 16-17), minus a 170 square foot parcel identified in Defendants’ Trial Exhibit 50 (App. 93) as “Parcel 4”, which Darrel and Connie Moberg (not named parties) may have a legal interest in. This property is hereinafter referred to as the “Quiet Title Property”. (See also Doc. Id. ##202, 205, and 206, describing the final legal description of the Quiet Title Property). [¶ 13] For purposes of explanation, the Quiet Title Property contains four distinct tracts, which are depicted, and legally described, in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7 (App. 132): Tract A-1 (or the “Undisputed Property”), Tract B-1 (or the “Issendorf Triangle”), the Triangle in Lot 11 (or the “Tonneson Triangle”),