Motschman v. Bridgepoint Mineral Acquisition Fund Llc

Decision Date22 March 2011
Docket NumberNo. 20100158.,20100158.
Citation2011 ND 46,795 N.W.2d 327
PartiesFred A. MOTSCHMAN, Jr., Plaintiff and Appellantv.BRIDGEPOINT MINERAL ACQUISITION FUND, LLC, Defendant and Appellee.
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Vance Gillette, New Town, N.D., for plaintiff and appellant.Mark Conrad Sherer (argued) and Nathan Morris Bouray (appeared), Dickinson, N.D., for defendant and appellee.KAPSNER, Justice.

[¶ 1] Fred Motschman, Jr., appealed from a district court summary judgment dismissing his action against Bridgepoint Mineral Acquisition Fund, L.L.C. (Bridgepoint), which sought a declaration that no valid contract existed between the parties or, alternatively, sought rescission of the contract. Motschman also appealed from an order denying his post-judgment motion for reconsideration. We affirm, concluding Motschman failed to properly raise the statute of frauds in the district court and the district court did not err in concluding that Motschman was not entitled to rescind the contract.

I

[¶ 2] In October 2008, Bridgepoint sent a letter to Motschman offering to purchase mineral rights Motschman owned in Dunn County, North Dakota, for $600 per acre. After Motschman responded to the letter and expressed an interest in selling his mineral rights, Bridgepoint sent a second letter to Motschman listing the legal description of the property, the acreage involved, and the purchase price of $63,996, representing $600 per acre for Motschman's 106.66 mineral acres. Bridgepoint enclosed a mineral deed for Motschman's signature and a sight draft payable to Motschman for the full purchase price. The letter further provided that, if the documents met with Motschman's approval, he should sign the deed in the presence of a notary public and return it to Bridgepoint. The letter further advised that Motschman could either return the sight draft to Bridgepoint for payment or deposit it with his bank for collection. Motschman signed the deed before a notary public and returned it to Bridgepoint. It is unclear whether Motschman returned the sight draft to Bridgepoint or kept it.

[¶ 3] Bridgepoint subsequently discovered there was a potential discrepancy with Motschman's name as it appeared on the mineral deed, so Bridgepoint sent a revised mineral deed for Motschman's signature. Motschman again signed the deed before a notary public and returned it to Bridgepoint. Bridgepoint then issued a check to Motschman for the purchase price of $63,996 and recorded the deed.

[¶ 4] Motschman, claiming that he had only intended to lease his mineral rights and not sell them, sent a letter to Bridgepoint stating:

This is to advise I, Fred Motschman is [sic] withdrawing my notary letter dated, November 24, 2008, and supersedes any previous documents that have been sent pertaining to the mineral deed to the land description. I am not willing to give my land or mineral rights away.

Bridgepoint responded by letter, noting that all of the parties' correspondence clearly indicated Motschman was selling his mineral rights and that the deed, which was conspicuously titled “MINERAL DEED,” stated that Motschman “does hereby TRANSFER, GRANT, CONVEY and SELL” his mineral interests to Bridgepoint. Bridgepoint's letter further claimed that the parties had executed a valid, completed contract and indicated that Bridgepoint had recorded the deed.

[¶ 5] Motschman brought this action alleging that, because he had not cashed the $63,996 check from Bridgepoint, “no actual money was paid to plaintiff and the contract failed for lack of consideration. He sought a declaration that there was no completed contract or, in the alternative, sought rescission of the contract. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded Motschman's refusal to cash the tendered check did not void the consideration and the parties had entered into a valid, binding contract. The court further concluded there was no basis for rescission. The court therefore granted Bridgepoint's motion for summary judgment, and judgment was entered dismissing Motschman's action.

[¶ 6] Motschman filed a motion for reconsideration based upon N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j). In this motion, Motschman for the first time raised the statute of frauds, arguing that the signed deed did not satisfy the statute of frauds because it did not contain the actual purchase price for the mineral rights. The district court summarily denied the motion for reconsideration, concluding that [t]he Plaintiff has failed to convince the Court that errors in law or fact were made which would require a reversal of the grant of summary judgment.” Motschman has appealed from the judgment and from the order denying the motion for reconsideration.

II

[¶ 7] Motschman contends the district court erred in finding there was a valid, enforceable contract between the parties because the deed he signed did not satisfy the statute of frauds.

[¶ 8] The statute of frauds provides that a contract for the sale of an interest in real property is invalid “unless the same or some note or memorandum thereof is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged.” N.D.C.C. § 9–06–04. Motschman argues that because the mineral deed did not list the actual price paid, but provided that the consideration was “Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration,” the deed did not satisfy the statute of frauds. Bridgepoint contends that Motschman waived the application of the statute of frauds when he failed to plead it or raise it as an issue on the cross-motions for summary judgment. Bridgepoint further contends that, because the writing taking an agreement out of the statute of frauds may consist of several related documents, the statute of frauds was satisfied in this case by the deed and the accompanying letter, which delineated all necessary elements of a valid contract.

[¶ 9] We find it unnecessary to reach the merits of Motschman's statute of frauds argument because we conclude he failed to properly raise the issue in the district court. The statute of frauds must be specifically pleaded, and a party who fails to plead it will be deemed to have waived his right to rely upon it. Baldus v. Mattern, 93 N.W.2d 144, 151–52 (N.D.1958); see also Kadrmas v. Kadrmas, 264 N.W.2d 892, 895 (N.D.1978). Motschman did not plead the statute of frauds, nor did he raise the issue in support of his ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Frandson v. Oasis Petroleum N. Am., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota
    • April 27, 2012
    ...of its argument, Oasis cites in particular to the North Dakota Supreme Court's decision in Motschman v. Bridgepoint Mineral Acquisition Fund, LLC, 2011 ND 46, 795 N.W.2d 327 (“Motschman ”). The Frandsons disagree. Among other things, they argue that § 9–12–18 does not apply to options nor, ......
  • Frandson v. Oasis Petroleum North America, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota
    • April 27, 2012
    ...of its argument, Oasis cites in particular to the North Dakota Supreme Court's decision in Motschman v. Bridgepoint Mineral Acquisition Fund, LLC, 2011 ND 46, 795 N.W.2d 327 ("Motschman"). The Frandsons disagree. Among other things, they argue that § 9-12-18 does not apply to options nor, m......
  • Eagleman v. State, 20150145.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 15, 2016
    ...mental process leading to a reasoned determination, or if it misinterprets or misapplies the law." Id. (quoting Motschman v. Bridgepoint Mineral Acquisition Fund, LLC, 2011 ND 46, ¶ 10, 795 N.W.2d 327 ). "A district court abuses its discretion when it fails to address nonfrivolous issues pr......
  • Flaten v. Couture
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • June 5, 2018
    ...a motion for reconsideration [under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) ] if it could have been raised in earlier proceedings." Motschman v. Bridgepoint Mineral Acquisition Fund, LLC , 2011 ND 46, ¶ 10, 795 N.W.2d 327. [¶ 29] Rule 60(b)(1), N.D.R.Civ.P., may be used to relieve a party from a judgment for mi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN 2011 AFFECTING THE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
    • United States
    • FNREL - Journals Legal Developments in 2011 Affecting the Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Industry (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...2010) aff'd 649 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2011). [87] 2011 ND 60, 795 N.W.2d 303, 308. [88] 2011 ND 64, 795 N.W.2d 294, 296. [89] Id. at 301. [90] 2011 ND 46, 795 N.W.2d 327, 331. [91] 2011 WL 1791102, at *1 (D.N.D. 2011). [92] 43 CFR 3162.3-1(c) [93] 43 CFR 3163.1(b)(2) [94] 2011-Ohio-5472 (Ohio ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT