Supreme Court hears dispute over marital-home valuation after contract-for-deed notice

The North Dakota Supreme Court heard argument on whether the district court erred in assigning a zero value to the marital home after a notice of cancellation of a contract for deed in Benjamin Jones v. Melanie Jones.

Appellant counsel Erin Conroy told the court the district court “conflated a pending threat of foreclosure with an actual final loss” and that a mere notice of cancellation filed one day before exhibit and witness-list deadlines did not mean the deed had been adjudicated or the equity erased. She said the notice appeared strategic, could be cured or contested, and that the district court failed to make the statutory findings required to move the valuation date away from the statutory valuation date.

Conroy argued the judgment nevertheless was final and appealable despite the district court’s reservation to revisit valuation if foreclosure did not proceed; she said that reservation did not remove the appellate court’s authority to review the valuation now. She urged the court to apply the statutory valuation date of December 2023 and to remand for findings consistent with treating the contract for deed as having equity if it was not finally canceled.

Defense counsel Chris Rausch told the justices the district court reasonably concluded the contract for deed had been terminated and therefore assigned the home a zero value, while leaving a narrow path to reopen the property distribution if subsequent events showed the cancellation was incorrect. Rausch said the trial court expressly conditioned revisiting valuation on future events and that the judgment was final for purposes of appeal.

The two sides also disputed whether the district court made the specific findings required to adopt a valuation date other than the default statutory date and whether the notice of cancellation should have produced an immediate valuation of zero. Conroy stressed the court did not make a specific finding that a substantial change in value had occurred after the statutory valuation date; Rausch relied on the court’s factual determination that a post-valuation-date termination had occurred and that the court left a procedural avenue to reopen if necessary.

The justices questioned counsel about the effect of the district court’s reservation on finality and about remedial mechanisms (for example, a Rule 60-type motion) if the cancellation proved incorrect. Justice questions explored whether the debtor could cure a default in a foreclosure action and how that legal posture should affect equitable distribution.

The case was taken under advisement and the court announced it would reconvene Feb. 6 to consider the matter further.

Ending: The court took the case under advisement; no ruling was announced at argument.