North Dakota Supreme Court hears dispute over adverse possession and $52,000 loan in Roth v. Meyer

The North Dakota Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Roth v. Meyer (file no. 20240324) over whether a district court correctly found adverse possession of a 10‑acre parcel and whether a $52,000 unjust enrichment award was supported by the record.

Appellants’ counsel Christopher Rausch argued the district court erred on remand by relying on inferences not supported by evidence and by misapplying law on adverse possession. Rausch told the court the district court “simply did not have the facts in the record on which to base its determinations” and argued adverse possession could not be found because the record showed a lack of the required hostile intent and exclusive, continuous use. He urged the court that permission to occupy can be implied in close family relationships and said the evidence did not show substantial enclosure or the type of cultivation that would trigger title by adverse possession.

Counsel for the Roths responded that this court’s prior remand required specific findings on adverse possession and that the district court was entitled to do so. That counsel said there was at least a partial enclosure around the house and pointed to house construction, mortgages, payment of property taxes, and other improvements as evidence of substantial cultivation or improvement. On the unjust enrichment claim, counsel for the Roths disputed the assertion that Mary Roth benefited from the funds and said the statute‑of‑limitations argument tied to unjust enrichment had not been pressed below and was therefore waived.

Justices questioned both sides about whether the law‑of‑the‑case doctrine applied after remand, how to identify when the statute of limitations for unjust enrichment would run, and whether a mortgage taken by the occupying party could signal hostile intent. Counsel debated whether a party claiming adverse possession must obtain a judicial decree to vest title or whether the 20‑year period alone can effect vesting under North Dakota law.

The parties and the court also discussed legal authorities cited during argument, including this court’s prior decision in Roth v. Meyer (2024) and recent North Dakota decisions addressing adverse possession and cultivation, as well as the six‑year limitations period referenced for unjust enrichment claims. No decision was announced at the argument.

Chief Justice John Jensen closed the argument by noting the case would be taken under advisement. The court adjourned the session until its next scheduled sitting.