Ehrman v. Feist
Decision Date | 10 September 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 960392,960392 |
Citation | 1997 ND 180,568 N.W.2d 747 |
Parties | Freida A. EHRMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Bruce FEIST, Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Roger L. EHRMAN, Ramona Thingvold, and Janice Haugen, Third-Party Defendants and Appellants. Civil |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Michael Ward (argued), of Eaton, Van de Streek & Ward, Minot, for plaintiff and appellant.
David J. Hogue (argued), of Pringle & Herigstad, PC, Minot, for defendant and appellee.
¶1 Freida A. Ehrman appealed a January 17, 1997, district court memorandum opinion 1 entered in her eviction action against Bruce Feist. We reverse the award of attorney fees, affirm the remainder of the judgment, and remand for entry of an amended judgment.
¶2 Hoping to begin a dairy operation, Feist rented a farmhouse, buildings, and pasture from Ehrman in 1991. On August 12, 1993, Ehrman and Feist executed a lease, providing in part:
¶3 Before executing the written lease, Feist made improvements to the property, such as repairing fences, gates and buildings. After executing the written lease, Feist made major improvements to the property, such as replacing the floor in the barn and erecting a sixty-foot addition to the barn.
¶4 Ehrman sued to evict Feist from the premises, alleging, among other things, that Feist had failed to pay rent and had committed waste. Feist answered the complaint and counterclaimed, alleging Ehrman had represented she owned the land but had only a life estate, that Ehrman had represented Feist would be able to buy the farm at the end of the lease term for a reasonable amount, and that in reliance on those representations, Feist had made improvements for which he was entitled to compensation. Feist filed a third-party complaint against Roger L. Ehrman, Ramona Thingvold, and Janice Haugen, Freida Ehrman's children, to clarify title to the property, alleging Ehrman had conveyed the property to them in 1987, reserving only a life estate. By stipulation of the parties, the claims were tried together in one bench trial.
¶5 On July 12, 1996, the trial court issued partial findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment. The court declared Ehrman owned a life estate in the land, with the remainder interest owned by her children. The court found Ehrman failed to establish Feist had committed waste, and also found the lease unambiguously provided for a term of seven years. The court ordered dismissal of Ehrman's eviction complaint.
¶6 On October 29, 1996, the trial court issued a memorandum opinion determining, among other things: (1) "Prior to the Lease, the parties had mutually agreed to a rental of the buildings and pasture for $265.00 per month"; (2) Under the lease, there were "116 acres subject to the cash rent," and "$25 per acre is a reasonable amount" for 1994 through 1996; (3) The lease covered 268 acres on a crop share basis under the provision involving any of the land not included in the cash rent acreage; (4) Bruce owed Freida $14,095 and Freida owed Bruce $5,896.07, with Freida's 1996 share-basis costs and Bruce's 1996 hay meadow payments to be determined later; (5) "[T]he Court does not have sufficient and competent evidence to assess [Feist's] labor costs to the capital improvements"; (6) $65,786.66 was "attributable as costs associated with the capital improvements to the barn"; (7) Ehrman was "responsible for the costs of repairing or replacing the furnace in the house"; (8) "As to the water well, both parties will be responsible for one-half of the cost"; (9) "Freida and Bruce must have contemplated the possible sale of the premises"; (10) In the first paragraph of the lease "Freida holds herself out as the owner"; (11) "Freida owned only a life estate in the property"; (12) "[A]t least by August 1990, Freida had knowledge of her type of ownership"; (13) "The Court does not believe it was the obligation of Bruce to investigate the actual ownership at the time of the Lease signing, since the consummation of a possible sale was to occur at a later time"; (14) "Freida did not attempt anything to clarify the ownership, and Bruce entered into the rental situation and possible sale of the premises with the understanding Freida had the legal right to do so"; (15) ; (16) Under NDCC 32-04-12, "the Court cannot force the complete sale of the property" because "Freida does not have the power to sell the remaindermen's interests"; (17) "[T]o resolve the dispute over the possible sale of the property and recovery of the barn capital improvements, the Court shall order the following:
¶7 After receiving a report on the expenses left undetermined in its memorandum opinion of October 26, 1996, the district court, on January 13, 1997, ordered:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Western Nat. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Univ. of ND
...statutory or contractual authority, the American Rule generally assumes each party to a lawsuit bears its own attorney fees. Ehrman v. Feist, 1997 ND 180, ¶ 18, 568 N.W.2d 747. This Court has allowed an insured to recover attorney fees in litigation to resolve insurance coverage disputes. S......
-
Fisher v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
...Absent statutory authority, the American Rule generally assumes each party to a lawsuit bears its own attorney fees. Ehrman v. Feist, 1997 ND 180, p 18, 568 N.W.2d 747. This court has, however, allowed an insured to recover attorney fees in litigation to resolve insurance coverage disputes.......
-
State v. Clark
...capricious manner, or misapplies or misinterprets the law.' State v. Christensen, 1997 N.D. 57, p 5, 561 N.W.2d 631." Ehrman v. Feist, 1997 ND 180, p 21, 568 N.W.2d 747. The trial court ruled Clark could introduce evidence of specific instances to show Girodengo's propensity for violence or......
-
VND, LLC v. Leevers Foods, Inc.
...Nursing Home, at ¶ 10. "[T]his court has consistently held a lease will ordinarily be construed most strongly against the lessor." Ehrman v. Feist, 1997 ND 180, ¶ 10, 568 N.W.2d 747 (citations [¶ 35] The written lease in this case states: Lessor is to provide and secure, at Lessor's expense......
-
CHAPTER 9 SHOTGUNS, LOCKED GATES, AND INDIGNATION: LITIGATING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN SURFACE USE DISPUTES
...e.g. Tri-Star Petroleum Co. v. Tipperary Corp., 101 S.W.3d 583, 592 (Tex. Ct.App. 2003). [92] Id. [93] Id. at 591. [94] Ehrman v. Feist, 1997 ND 180, ¶ 16, 568 N.W.2d 747, 753. [95] Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, AK, 480 U.S. 531, 545 (1987) ("Environmental injury, by its nature, can ......