Trosen v. Trosen
| Decision Date | 08 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20220048 |
| Citation | 982 N.W.2d 527 |
| Parties | Brent TROSEN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shirley Trosen and as Successor Trustee for the Trosen Family Trust, Plaintiffs and Appellees v. Jeffery A. TROSEN, Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff and Appellant and Brent Trosen and Todd Trosen, Third-Party Defendants and Appellees |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Douglas A. Christensen (argued) and Joseph E. Quinn (on brief), Grand Forks, ND, for plaintiffs and appellees and third-party defendants and appellees.
DeWayne A. Johnston, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant, third-party plaintiff and appellant.
[¶1] Jeff Trosen appealed from a judgment and amended judgment awarding damages for a breach of contract claim to the Estate of Shirley Trosen and the Trosen Family Trust and dismissing Jeff Trosen's counterclaim and third-party complaint. Jeff Trosen argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and by dismissing his counterclaim and third-party complaint. We affirm.
[¶2] In 2017, Jeff Trosen began leasing farm land from Shirley Trosen, individually and as trustee of the Trosen Family Trust. The farm lease covered the farming seasons of 2017 through 2022. Under the terms of the lease, Jeff Trosen was to pay annual rent in the amount of $80,725.40 for 1,153.22 tillable acres.
[¶3] Jeff Trosen paid the rent for the 2017 crop year in February 2017, the rent for the 2018 crop year in February and March 2018, and the rent for the 2019 crop year in February and April 2019. For the 2020 crop year, Jeff Trosen made a partial rent payment of $28,000 on December 30, 2020, and had an unpaid balance of $52,725.40. For the 2021 crop year, Jeff Trosen made a partial rent payment of $30,000 on April 9, 2021, and had an unpaid balance of $50,725.40.
[¶4] In February 2021, the plaintiffs, Shirley Trosen, individually and as trustee of the Trosen Family Trust, and Brent Trosen, as attorney-in-fact for Shirley Trosen, sued Jeff Trosen seeking damages for breach of the farm lease and to cancel the lease. The plaintiffs alleged Jeff Trosen breached the lease by failing to pay the full rent for the 2020 crop year. The complaint was later amended to add a claim related to the rent for the 2021 crop year. Jeff Trosen filed an answer, counterclaim, and third-party complaint against Brent Trosen and Todd Trosen ("third-party defendants"), asserting claims of intentional interference with a contract and unlawful interference with business.
[¶5] On May 12, 2021, while the action was pending, Shirley Trosen passed away. Brent Trosen, as personal representative of Shirley Trosen's estate and as the successor trustee, was substituted as a party.
[¶6] The plaintiffs and third-party defendants moved for summary judgment dismissal of Jeff Trosen's counterclaims and third-party complaint. Jeff Trosen moved to extend the deadline to respond to the motion. The district court denied Jeff Trosen's motion. Jeff Trosen did not file a response to the plaintiffs and third-party defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The district court granted the plaintiffs and third-party defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Jeff Trosen's counterclaims and third-party complaint.
[¶7] Jeff Trosen also moved for summary judgment, arguing the 2021 rent claimed by the plaintiffs must be apportioned to the date of Shirley Trosen's death because the date of her death terminates any interest her estate or the trust has in the rents from the farm property. He requested the plaintiffs’ claims related to the 2021 rent be limited to the period of time prior to Shirley Trosen's death and for the district court to declare he has no liability for 2021 rent on land he acquired through Shirley Trosen or the Trosen Family Trust after her death. The plaintiffs opposed Jeff Trosen's motion for summary judgment.
[¶8] The district court denied Jeff Trosen's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their breach of contract claim. The court concluded the farm lease was a valid contract between Jeff Trosen, Shirley Trosen, and the Trosen Family Trust; Jeff Trosen breached the contract by failing to pay the 2020 and 2021 rent; and Shirley Trosen and the Trosen Family Trust have been damaged in the amount of $103,450.80 plus interest. The court also ordered termination of the farm lease. Judgment was entered awarding $51,725.40 to the Estate of Shirley Trosen and $51,725.40 to the Trosen Family Trust for rent due for the 2020 and 2021 crop years.
[¶9] The plaintiffs moved for an award of attorney's fees. The district court determined the plaintiffs were entitled to attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the terms of the farm lease, and awarded the plaintiffs attorney's fees in the amount of $50,329.03.
[¶10] Jeff Trosen filed a notice of lis pendens. The plaintiffs moved to cancel the lis pendens. The district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion. An amended judgment was entered.
[¶11] The standard for reviewing a district court's decision on summary judgment is well established:
Summary judgment is a procedural device for the prompt resolution of a controversy on the merits without a trial if there are no genuine issues of material fact or inferences that can reasonably be drawn from undisputed facts, or if the only issues to be resolved are questions of law. A party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In determining whether summary judgment was appropriately granted, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and that party will be given the benefit of all favorable inferences which can reasonably be drawn from the record. On appeal, this Court decides whether the information available to the district court precluded the existence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitled the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law which we review de novo on the entire record.
Lovro v. City of Finley , 2022 ND 145, ¶ 10, 978 N.W.2d 67 (quoting Simmons v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. , 2022 ND 20, ¶ 8, 969 N.W.2d 442 ).
[¶12] Jeff Trosen argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their breach of contract claim.
[¶13] The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the breach of contract claim. The court concluded the farm lease was a valid and enforceable contract, the lease did not specify a date the rent was due, but the court determined the rent was due prior to April 1 each year based on the parties’ course of conduct. The court stated it was undisputed Jeff Trosen made partial rent payments for the 2020 and 2021 crop years, there was an outstanding rent balance of $52,725.40 for 2020 and $50,725.40 for 2021, and Shirley Trosen died on May 12, 2021. The court stated Jeff Trosen conceded he was responsible for payment of the 2020 rent, subject only to the potential right to setoff as outlined in the counterclaim and third-party complaint, which were dismissed.
[¶14] The district court rejected Jeff Trosen's apportionment argument, explaining the right to receive the 2020 and 2021 rent accrued prior to Shirley Trosen's death, the right to collect the unpaid rent did not attach to and run with the land as Jeff Trosen asserted, and the right to collect the unpaid rent passed to the Estate of Shirley Trosen and the Trosen Family Trust. The court concluded a valid contract existed between Jeff Trosen, Shirley Trosen, and the Trosen Family Trust; Jeff Trosen breached the contract by failing to pay the rent for 2020 and 2021; and Shirley Trosen and the Trosen Family Trust have been damaged in the amount of $103,450.80 plus interest.
[¶15] Jeff Trosen argues the district court erred in interpreting the trust. He asserts Shirley Trosen was entitled to all of the income derived from the trust as long as she lived, but the property vested in fee from the trust to the beneficiaries upon Shirley Trosen's death and the beneficiaries immediately perfected their ownership and the apportioned income from the property.
[¶16] The interpretation of a trust document is a question of law if the intent can be ascertained from the document alone. In re Curtiss A. Hogen Trust B , 2018 ND 117, ¶ 18, 911 N.W.2d 305. The general rules of interpretation of written instruments apply to the interpretation of trust documents. Dwyer v. Sell , 2021 ND 139, ¶ 9, 963 N.W.2d 292. The language of the document governs its interpretation if it is clear and does not involve an absurdity. Id. ; see also N.D.C.C. § 9-07-02. The parties’ intent is ascertained from the writing alone if possible. N.D.C.C. § 9-07-04.
[¶17] The Trosen Family Trust states the grantors, Shirley and Duane Trosen, each own an individual one-half interest in the farm property as tenants in common, each grantor is entitled to one-half of the income derived from the farm property, and upon the death of a grantor the surviving grantor is entitled to "all of the income derived from the Farm Property so long as he or she shall live." The trust also states:
Upon the death of a Grantor the deceased Grantor's undivided one-half interest in the Farm Property shall vest in each of the respective Beneficiaries as set forth below, subject to a life estate in favor of the surviving Grantor. For example, upon the death of Shirley Trosen, her undivided one-half interest in the Farm Property shall be deemed vested in the respective Beneficiary of each parcel of real property set forth below, subject to a life estate in favor of Duane Trosen.
The trust further states, "Upon the death of the surviving Grantor the Trustee shall convey each parcel of real property comprising the Farm Property unto the individual Beneficiary designated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kaspari v. Kaspari
...[¶9] "We do not consider arguments that are not adequately articulated, supported, and briefed." Trosen v. Trosen, 2022 ND 216, ¶ 33, 982 N.W.2d 527. party abandons an argument by failing to raise it in the party's appellate brief." Somerset Ct., LLC v. Burgum, 2021 ND 58, ¶ 13, 956 N.W.2d ......
- Schmidt v. Hageness