Erickson v. Erickson, 20090325.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
| Citation | 2010 ND 86,782 N.W.2d 346 |
| Docket Number | No. 20090325.,20090325. |
| Parties | John S. ERICKSON and Lila C. Erickson, Plaintiffs and Appellantsv.Catherine B. ERICKSON, individually, and in her capacity as personal representative of the Estate of Marshall Erickson, deceased, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 11 May 2010 |
782 N.W.2d 346
2010 ND 86
John S. ERICKSON and Lila C. Erickson, Plaintiffs and Appellants
v.
Catherine B. ERICKSON, individually, and in her capacity as personal representative of the Estate of Marshall Erickson, deceased, Defendant and Appellee.
No. 20090325.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
May 11, 2010.
Malcolm H. Brown, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellee.
CROTHERS, Justice.
[¶ 1] John and Lila Erickson appeal the district court's judgment dismissing their constructive fraud action against Catherine Erickson. We affirm, concluding John and Lila Erickson did not present evidence showing Marshall Erickson misled them into entering a 1998 contract for deed.
[¶ 2] John and Lila Erickson were married in 1956 and live on a family farm near Wilton, North Dakota. Three children were born of the marriage, with their son Marshall Erickson being the youngest. Marshall Erickson was married in 1981. The marriage produced a son before ending in divorce in 1996. In 1998, John and Lila Erickson sold their farm to Marshall Erickson by a contract for deed. The farm consisted of 1,585 acres, and the purchase price was $390,000. The contract for deed reserved a life estate for John and Lila Erickson, and a performance clause required John and Lila Erickson to convey the farm to Marshall Erickson by warranty deed when he satisfied his obligations under the contract. Affidavits submitted by John and Lila Erickson state, “Our intent is and always has been to keep this farm in the family. Marshall told us that this was his intent as well.”
[¶ 3] In 2002, Marshall Erickson executed a will leaving his interest in the farm to John and Lila Erickson. In 2005, Marshall Erickson married Catherine Burke-Erickson. No prenuptial agreement was signed, but John Erickson claims that Marshall Erickson assured such a contract would be entered to ensure the farm stayed in the family.
[¶ 4] Marshall Erickson executed a second will on April 2, 2007, revoking his 2002 will and leaving all of his property to Catherine Erickson if she survived him. Marshall Erickson was diagnosed with a brain tumor on May 19, 2007 and died on September 7, 2008. John and Lila Erickson were unaware of Marshall Erickson's second will until after his death. Upon discovery of the second will, John and Lila Erickson informed Catherine Erickson of their intent to rescind the 1998 contract for deed. Catherine Erickson refused to rescind, instead tendering the balance on the contract for deed and demanding a warranty deed from John and Lila Erickson. Catherine Erickson also tendered a check to keep current the payments due John and Lila Erickson under the 1998 contract for deed. Both tenders were rejected by John and Lila Erickson.
[¶ 5] In December 2008, John and Lila Erickson sued Catherine Erickson for rescission of the 1998 contract for deed, alleging her predecessor, Marshall Erickson, constructively defrauded them into entering the 1998 contract for deed. The district court granted Catherine Erickson's motion for summary judgment, concluding John and Lila Erickson's action failed because a constructive fraud claim cannot lie unless it is shown “that the person claiming constructive fraud was misled in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holverson v. Lundberg, 20150313.
...through fraud. N.D.C.C. §§ 9–03–01 and 9–03–03(3) ; American Bank Ctr. v. Wiest, 2010 ND 251, ¶ 10, 793 N.W.2d 172 ; Erickson v. Erickson, 2010 ND 86, ¶ 7, 782 N.W.2d 346. A party who has been induced to enter a contract by fraudulent misrepresentations may elect to rescind the contract, or......
-
Golden Eye Res., LLC v. Ganske, 20130219.
...through fraud. N.D.C.C. §§ 9–03–01 and 9–03–03(3) ; American Bank Ctr. v. Wiest, 2010 ND 251, ¶ 10, 793 N.W.2d 172 ; Erickson v. Erickson, 2010 ND 86, ¶ 7, 782 N.W.2d 346. If a party's apparent free consent to the contract has been obtained by fraud, the defrauded party may rescind the cont......
-
Am. Bank Ctr. v. Wiest, 20100027.
...parties capable of contracting, consent, a lawful object, and sufficient consideration. N.D.C.C. § 9-01-02; see Erickson v. Erickson, 2010 ND 86, ¶ 7, 782 N.W.2d 346. Section 9-03-01, N.D.C.C., requires the parties' consent to be free, mutual, and communicated by each to the other. Erickson......
-
N. Am. Bullion Exch., LLC v. CC Trading, LLC, 17-CV-203-LRR
...where the source of the claimant's injury is the breach of an existing duty between the contracting parties." Erickson v. Erickson , 782 N.W.2d 346, 349 (N.D. 2010). "Because constructive fraud negates a party's apparent consent to the formation of a contract, the claim can succeed only if ......