Silbernagel v. Silbernagel

• Citation: 2011 ND 140,800 N.W.2d 320
• Decision Date: 13 July 2011
• Docket Number: 20100394,20100395.,Nos. 20100393,s. 20100393
• Parties: John M. SILBERNAGEL and Tom Silbernagel, Individually and as the Co–Guardians of the person and Co–Conservators of the Estate of John P. Silbernagel, an incapacitated person, Plaintiffs and Appelleesv.Stephen SILBERNAGEL, a/k/a Steve Silbernagel; Jane Silbernagel, a/k/a Jane V. Silbernagel, Defendants and Appellants.In the Matter of the Guardianship and Conservatorship of J.P.S., a/k/a J.S.Stephen Silbernagel, a/k/a Steve Silbernagel; Jane Silbernagel, a/k/a Jane V. Silbernagel, Appellantsv.John M. Silbernagel and Tom Silbernagel, Individually and as the Co–Guardians of the person and Co–Conservators of the Estate of J.P.S., and incapacitated person, Appellees.In the Matter of the Estate of John P. Silbernagel, Deceased.Stephen Silbernagel, a/k/a Steve Silbernagel; Jane Silbernagel, a/k/a Jane V. Silbernagel, Appellantsv.John M. Silbernagel and Tom Silbernagel, Individually and as the Co–Guardians of the person and Co–Conservators of the Estate of John P. Silbernagel, an incapacitated person, Appellees.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota

800 N.W.2d 320

2011 ND 140

John M. SILBERNAGEL and Tom Silbernagel, Individually and as the Co–Guardians of the person and Co–Conservators of the Estate of John P. Silbernagel, an incapacitated person, Plaintiffs and Appellees

v.Stephen SILBERNAGEL, a/k/a Steve Silbernagel; Jane Silbernagel, a/k/a Jane

v. Silbernagel, Defendants and Appellants.In the Matter of the Guardianship and Conservatorship of J.P.S., a/k/a J.S.Stephen Silbernagel, a/k/a Steve Silbernagel; Jane Silbernagel, a/k/a Jane

v. Silbernagel, Appellants

v.John M. Silbernagel and Tom Silbernagel, Individually and as the Co–Guardians of the person and Co–Conservators of the Estate of J.P.S., and incapacitated person, Appellees.In the Matter of the Estate of John P. Silbernagel, Deceased.Stephen Silbernagel, a/k/a Steve Silbernagel; Jane Silbernagel, a/k/a Jane

v. Silbernagel, Appellants

v.John M. Silbernagel and Tom Silbernagel, Individually and as the Co–Guardians of the person and Co–Conservators of the Estate of John P. Silbernagel, an incapacitated person, Appellees.

Nos. 20100393

20100394

20100395.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

July 13, 2011.

Donavin L. Grenz, Linton, N.D., for plaintiffs and appellees.Joseph J. Cichy, Bismarck, N.D., for defendants and appellants.KAPSNER, Justice.

[¶ 1] Stephen and Jane Silbernagel appeal from a judgment entered upon a motion by John M. and Tom Silbernagel to enforce a prior stipulated judgment in consolidated cases involving the estates of John P. Silbernagel and Marcella Silbernagel. Stephen and Jane Silbernagel assert the purpose of the stipulated judgment has been frustrated by an unexpected claim to land involved in the prior judgment, and they seek to vacate that judgment for a trial on the merits. We conclude the district court did not err in construing the prior stipulated judgment, and we affirm.

I

[¶ 2] Stephen, Tom, and John M. Silbernagel are sons of John P. Silbernagel, who died in 2003, and grandchildren of Marcella Silbernagel, who died in 1983, but whose estate was not probated or settled. A family dispute arose regarding interests in land in Kidder and Logan counties, which had been owned by Marcella Silbernagel and initially farmed by John P. Silbernagel. Stephen Silbernagel subsequently farmed the land and was named in John P. Silbernagel's will as the beneficiary of his father's interest in the land. In three consolidated cases beginning in 2002 and involving a guardianship and conservatorship for John P. Silbernagel, the probate of his estate, and an action to set aside a conveyance of land by John P. Silbernagel to Stephen Silbernagel, John M. and Tom Silbernagel sued Stephen Silbernagel and his wife, Jane Silbernagel. During October 2004 jury selection in those consolidated cases, the parties reached a settlement agreement, which was read into the record by Stephen and Jane Silbernagel's attorney:

Okay the agreement is that my clients Steve and Jane Silbernagel will pay to [John M. and Tom Silbernagel] $150,000. There will be a reasonable time given to [Stephen and Jane Silbernagel] to secure the financing for that. In exchange for that [John M. and Tom Silbernagel] will release any and all interests they have in the estate of John P. and the estate of Marcella to Steve. They will release any and all interests in the FSA payment to Steve. My clients Steve and Jane will pay the debts associated with the administrator of the estate of John P. which includes Malcolm Brown and the personal representative Bill Chaussee, with the exception of $3500 to the nursing home. That will be $3500, the equivalent of or value of will be responsible by [John M. and Tom Silbernagel]. Also, in exchange for that, if a quiet title action is required to clear title on Marcella's property [John M. and Tom Silbernagel] will agree to cooperate with that to the fullest extent necessary that's required. If Jane and Steve should ever elect to sell the property, any of the property, they will give [John M. and Tom Silbernagel] the first option to purchase. And we do believe that the parties should be able to work amongst themselves on dividing some of—of the items belonging to John P. and Lorraine P. The only property specifically discussed is a deer head that will be given to [John M. and Tom Silbernagel]. And everyone will be responsible for their own attorney's fees.

[¶ 3] The settlement agreement was incorporated into an April 29, 2005 judgment and a March 31, 2008 amended judgment. Before entry of the April 2005 judgment, however, John M. and Tom Silbernagel brought a separate breach of contract action against Stephen and Jane Silbernagel, alleging they had breached the settlement agreement and seeking $150,000 in damages, plus interest. We affirmed the dismissal of that action, concluding the district court did not err in refusing to permit the introduction of parol evidence to show that $150,000, plus interest, was supposed to be paid within 90 to 120 days after the settlement agreement. Silbernagel v. Silbernagel, 2007 ND 124, ¶¶ 9–15, 736 N.W.2d 441. We said the parol evidence about interest and the payment date would directly conflict with language granting Stephen and Jane Silbernagel “ ‘a reasonable period of time within which to secure financing to make the $150,000.00 payment’ ” and stating the payment was “ ‘[i]n full settlement of the pending actions.’ ” Id. at ¶¶ 13–14. We also concluded there was evidence John M. and Tom Silbernagel had failed to cooperate with a quiet title action, and we concluded the court did not clearly err in finding Stephen and Jane Silbernagel did not breach the settlement agreement and judgment. Id. at ¶¶ 16–19.

[¶ 4] After the entry of the stipulated judgment, Stephen and Jane Silbernagel brought a quiet title action to clear title to Marcella Silbernagel's land, which consisted of about 996 acres. During the quiet title action, Betty Jo Elliot, a niece of John P. Silbernagel and a granddaughter of Marcella Silbernagel, asserted a claim to the land. The quiet title action resulted in an April 4, 2006 judgment determining that Elliot owned a one-twelfth interest in Marcella Silbernagel's land and that John M. and Tom Silbernagel each owned a one twenty-fourth interest in the land. See Silbernagel v. Silbernagel, 2006 ND 235, ¶¶ 1–2, 725 N.W.2d 588 (holding prior judgment in heirship proceeding was res judicata regarding Elliot's share of the land and summarily affirming Elliot's appeal in quiet title action).

[¶ 5] Meanwhile, Stephen and Jane Silbernagel attempted to secure financing for their $150,000 payment to John M. and Tom Silbernagel. However, their loan requests were denied because they were not able to pledge all of Marcella Silbernagel's land as security for the proposed loan. In September 2007, Stephen and Jane Silbernagel moved under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) to amend the April 29, 2005 stipulated judgment, claiming the judgment was impossible to perform because they could not get clear title to all of Marcella Silbernagel's land and could not use all that land to finance their $150,000 payment to John M. and Tom Silbernagel. In February 2008, the district court concluded the October 2004 stipulation and April 2005 judgment did not require John M. and Tom Silbernagel to convey Elliot's interest in Marcella Silbernagel's land to Stephen and Jane Silbernagel. However, the court amended the April 2005 judgment to clarify that “should a quiet title action be necessary to clear title on the lands involved in the Marcella Silbernagel estate, John M. Silbernagel and Tom Silbernagel will cooperate with said action to the fullest extent necessary.”

[¶ 6] In September 2007, the court appointed a referee under N.D.C.C. ch. 32–10 to “carry that [j]udgment dated April 29, 2005, ... into effect.” In a June 12, 2008 letter to counsel and the court, the referee opined that John M. and Tom Silbernagel had satisfied the terms of the stipulated judgment:

1. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulated settlement, did John and Tom agree to convey their interests in the “estates” or to the “land” to Jane and Steve? I note that the stipulation expressly uses the word “estates” and not “land”. In my ... opinion, an assignment document executed by John and Tom is all that would be required to satisfy this stipulated term. [Counsel for John and Tom] delivered an original Assignment document to my office. In my opinion, Tom and John have met their obligations regarding this element.

2. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, did John and Tom agree or guaranty that Steve and Jane would end up with 100% of the “land”? Again, the language of the Stipulation discusses interests in the “estates” and not interests in the “land”. In my ... opinion, Tom and John agreed to convey their interests in the “estates” to Steve and Jane. There was no discussion of a conveyance of “land”. Although Steve and Jane may have intended and desired to acquire 100% of the “land”, the language of the stipulation is clear and unambiguous. Upon tender of the assignment of interest document referenced in item 1, above, John and Tom met their obligations under the terms of the stipulation.

3. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, was the stipulation contingent on Steve and Jane obtaining 100% financing for the $150,000 purchase price? The stipulation states that Steve and Jane would be afforded “... reasonable time to secure financing”. Initially, the language did not state that the land and only the land would be pledged by Steve and Jane as security for the financing. Second, the language of the stipulation did not cause the settlement to be contingent on financing. Although Steve and Jane may have intended that the stipulation be contingent on their ability to secure financing for 100% of the purchase price, the language read into the record did not create such a contingency. Third, years have now passed since the date of the hearing and the stipulated settlement. I[t is] my position that...