BISMARCK, N.D. — The North Dakota Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an appeal over whether a district court correctly canceled a 2012 contract-for-deed after a contested probate fight and whether procedural notice and appealability rules were followed.

The appeal centers on a county court order that canceled a contract-for-deed between the late Marvin Lehi and a buyer, the allocation of a roughly $100,000 payment made to satisfy that contract, and the appointment of Dakota Bank as a successor personal representative of the estate. The case was argued before Justice Daniel Carothers, Justice Lisa Fair McEvers, Justice Douglas Barr, and District Court Judge Romanik sitting in place of Justice Jared Tufty; John Jensen was also sitting.

Why it matters: The court must decide legal limits on who may seek termination of a contract for deed during probate, what notice or cure opportunities are required by the contract and by statute when termination is sought through court action, and whether a personal representative (or an heir acting as petitioner) may proceed. The decision will affect title to the land at issue, the disposition of the estate’s funds and rents, and the scope for similar probate-contract disputes statewide.

Key facts and holdings under review

- District court order: The district court granted summary judgment canceling the 2012 contract-for-deed and concluded no contractual notice or redemption period was required before canceling the contract. The court also treated a later $100,000 payment as subject to estate accounting and applied it against an outstanding rent determination. Counsel told the Supreme Court that the district court later denied reconsideration on some points.

- Appointment of Dakota Bank: Dakota Bank was appointed as (or became) successor personal representative; the bank filed pleadings in the probate and has been treated by the district court as authorized to act on some estate matters. Appellate briefing and argument dispute when that appointment became a final, appealable order.

- The $100,000 payment: Appellant counsel argued the $100,000 — described in the record as a payoff toward the contract-for-deed — was transferred from an estate account at Unison Bank to Dakota Bank and then expended before the district court resolved title and distribution questions. Appellant attorney John Ward argued that Dakota Bank “was aware of the $100,000 payment” and that expending those funds before a final resolution weighs in the appellant’s favor.

Legal and procedural arguments

- Standing and who may bring the claim: Appellant counsel John Ward argued that the buyer who paid under the contract (and later sought adjudication) was deprived of required notice and cure rights and questioned whether an heir rather than the personal representative properly brought the termination petition. Appellee counsel Christopher Nyehous and counsel Chris Nias defended the petitioning heir’s standing, arguing heirs may file to protect estate assets and that the district court found bases for standing (including the heirs’ interests and prior filings).

- Formal vs. informal probate and appealability: Justices and counsel debated whether contested proceedings converted the probate to a formal probate (with implications for interlocutory appealability). Counsel acknowledged that if the probate proceedings were formal, interlocutory appeals generally require a certification under Rule 54(b) or equivalent procedure. Chris Nias said the filing of an action converts the matter to a formal proceeding for purposes of the cited definition; other counsel warned that formal status can limit when appeals may be taken.

- Notice and remedy framework: The parties argued about precedent and statutory schemes cited in briefing. Appellant counsel relied on the court’s recent decisions (transcript references include “AxFIC”/“Axvig” and the Beckstrand line of authorities) to argue notice and cure requirements must be respected. Appellee counsel argued that when termination proceeds by court action (rather than statutory notice or foreclosure), the petition itself can supply sufficient notice and civil-procedure safeguards, citing analogous case law and a statutory provision referenced in argument (transcript reference: “32 18 o 4”).

- Equitable remedies, rents, and valuation of improvements: Appellee counsel argued the district court used equitable powers to allocate rents and determine whether a redemption period should be allowed; the court applied appraisals to compute cash-rent equivalents for certain years. Appellant counsel argued the district court’s equitable structuring deprived the buyer of credit for improvements and that the monetary award and valuation treatment constituted an abuse of discretion.

Quotes from the argument

- “The main issues in this matter really boil down to 3,” appellant attorney John Ward told the court, listing standing, notice of default, and the bank’s handling of the payoff as the primary issues.

- Appellee counsel Chris Nias said, “The facts of this case are unique,” and urged the court to defer to the district court’s equitable determinations unless they amounted to an abuse of discretion.

What the justices pressed on

Justices questioned whether contested proceedings in probate convert an informal probate into a formal one for appealability purposes, whether the petition filed to terminate the contract contained the specific cure language required by the contract clause at issue, and whether a personal representative’s conduct (including an alleged unilateral transfer of the payoff sum while a motion to remove the PR was pending) should be upheld.

Case status and next steps

The Supreme Court took the case under advisement after argument. Counsel noted the district court record includes extensive filings, appraisals, depositions, and a matrix of payment history presented in briefing. The justices set no oral-argument follow-up date during the session and announced the court would reconvene on Monday, Sept. 22, for other business. The timetable for an opinion was not stated on the record.

Reported speakers and appearances

Counsel and bench members who argued or were identified during the oral argument appear in the court record below; quotes and attributions in this article come only from the speakers listed in the court transcript.

Ending note

The Supreme Court’s eventual decision will clarify how notice, cure opportunities, equitable remedies and probate procedures interact in North Dakota when a disputed contract-for-deed intersects with ongoing estate administration.