Lang v. Schmitt

• Docket Number: 1:23-cv-157
• Decision Date: 18 September 2023
• Parties: Korrine Lang and Lloyd Kleppe, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Harlan Kleppe, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. Cody Rodney Schmitt, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota

1

Korrine Lang and Lloyd Kleppe, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Harlan Kleppe, Deceased, Plaintiffs,
v.
Cody Rodney Schmitt, Defendant.

No. 1:23-cv-157

United States District Court, D. North Dakota

September 18, 2023

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR REMAND

Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge United States District Court

Before the court is a Motion for Remand filed by Plaintiffs on August 30, 2023. (Doc. No. 6). Plaintiffs seek to remand two matters removed by Defendant Cody Rodney Schmitt (“Schmitt”): (1) Kidder County Probate File, In the matter of the Estate of Harlan Kleppe, deceased, Kidder County Case No. 22-2022-PR-00012; and (2) A Kidder County Quiet Title Action titled Korrine Lange and Lloyd Kleppe, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Harlan Kleppe, Deceased v. Cody Rodney Schmitt, Kidder County Case No. 22-2023-CV-00016. The parties have consented to the court's exercise of jurisdiction over this matter. (Doc. Nos. 5 and 8). For reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs' motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Harlan Kleppe (“Harlan”) died on August 31, 2022. (Doc. No. 6-1). Two of Harlan's siblings, Korrine Lang (Korrine”) and Lloyd Kleppe (“Lloyd”) were appointed as Co-Personal Representatives of Harlan's estate by the state district court in Kidder County, North Dakota. (Doc. Nos. 6-1 and 6-2).

A Notice to Creditors (“Notice”) was published in the Steele Ozone & Kidder County Press

2

on October 12, 19, and 26, 2022. (Doc. No. 6-4). It advised that Korrine and Lloyd had been appointed the Co-Personal Representatives of Harlan's estate and that, pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 30.119-01, persons with claims against the estate had three months from the first date of the Notice's publication in which to present them. (Id.).

On January 20, 2023, Schmitt filed a claim against Harlan's estate. (Doc. No. 6-5). On February 9, 2023, Korrine and Lloyd denied Schmitt's claim on the grounds that it lacked merit and supporting documentation, did not comply with the requirements of N.D.C.C. § 30.1-19-04, and was untimely and therefore barred by N.D.C.C. § 30.1-19-03. (Id.). They advised Schmitt that, pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 30-1-19-04, he had sixty days to either to petition the state district court for an allowance of his claim or commence a proceeding against them. (Id.).

On February 9, 2023, Schmitt caused a Public Notice to be recorded against the following property of Harlan's in Kidder County (hereafter referred to as the “Subject Property”):

Township 138 North, Range 72 West

Section 16: NEl/4 and SWl/4

Section 21: NEl/4 and Wl/2

Section 29: Nl/2

(Doc. No. 6-7). He claimed that he had acquired an interest in the Subject Property pursuant to a preliminary agreement he had reached with Harlan prior to his death. .

On March 21, 2023, Korrine and Lloyd filed an action against Schmitt on behalf of Harlan's estate, seeking to quiet title to the Subject Property. (Id.). On May 22, 2023, they filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Id.). On August 7, 2023, state district court in Kidder County held a hearing on the motion. (Id.). Finding that the preliminary agreement between Schmitt and Harlan had created no estate, interest in, or encumbrance upon the Subject Property, it issued an order on August 16, 2023, granting the Motion for Summary Judgment and clearing title to the Subject

3

Property of Schmitt's claim. (Id.). Judgment was entered that same day. (Doc No. 6-10).

On August 22, 2023, Schmitt filed an Notice of Removal with this court. (Doc. No. 1). He seeks to remove both the quiet title action and the probate of Harlan's estate to this court. As the basis for this court's exercise of jurisdiction, he cites, among other things, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441 and 1446, 28 U.S.C. § 1391,^[1] 28 U.S.C. § 1602,^[2] the Quiet Title Act,^[3] the Uniform Probate Code. and Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (“ESIGN Act”).^[4] (Doc. Nos. 1 and 1-1). He complains of “various willful, systemic depravations of fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution and/or Federal law, and which Depravations are civil violations and criminal violations ....” (Doc. No. 1-4) (errors in original). He goes on to assert that he has an interest in the Subject Property by virtue of his preliminary agreement with Harlan, that he provided one of Harlan's siblings with the preliminary agreement at Harlan's funeral, that Lloyd had the preliminary agreement in his possession by late September 2022, and that Korrine and Lloyd had committed a fraud upon the state district court during the course of the probate of Harlan's estate as they failed to personally serve him with the Notice to Creditors and conspired to conceal his preliminary agreement with Harlan. He further asserts that the state district court did not have jurisdiction to

4

proceed with the quiet title action as the probate of Harlan's estate was “initiated in fraud.” (Id.). Interspersed among these assertions are allegations that counsel representing Harlan's estate sent him threatening and intimidating emails, that Lloyd slandered him, and that the Kidder County Sheriff violated his Fourth Amendment rights. (Id.).

On August 30, 2023, Korrine and Lloyd filed a Motion to Remand. (Doc. No. 6). Asserting that removal of the quiet title action and the probate of Harlan's estate by Schmitt was improper as this court lacks jurisdiction, they request that these matters be remanded back to state court. (Id.). They further request that the court order Schmitt to pay the $1,200.00 in attorney's fees that they incurred as a result of the removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). (Id.).

On September 11, 2023, Schmitt filed a response in opposition to the Motion to Remand, asserting, among other things, that Korrine and Lloyd's request for remand lacks support in both law and fact. (Doc. No. 18).

II. APPLICABLE LAW

A. Jurisdiction

‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,' possessing ‘only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.'” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts have original subject matter jurisdiction over claims for alleged violations of federal laws or the United States Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) (jurisdiction for enforcement of federal constitutional and statutory rights). Federal courts also have subject matter jurisdiction...