Olson v. Olson, et al.

                     IN THE SUPREME COURT
                     STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                   

Terry L. Olson,                                                            Plaintiff
       v.
Kevin L. Olson and Steffen S. Olson,                                   Defendants
       and
The Hetland Family Limited Partners,                           Plaintiff-Intervenor
       v.
Terry L. Olson, Kevin L. Olson, and
Heather M. Olson, as successor-in-interest
to Steffen S. Olson, deceased,                         Defendants in Intervention
       and
Kyle Simonson and Angela Simonson,                            Plaintiff-Intervenors
       v.
Terry L. Olson, Kevin L. Olson,
and Steffen S. Olson,                                  Defendants in Intervention

                                   No. 20250120

Certified question from the District Court of Renville, Northeast Judicial District,
the Honorable Anthony S. Benson, Judge.

CERTIFIED QUESTION NOT ANSWERED.

Opinion of the Court by Crothers, Justice.

Elliot J. Stoll (argued) and Ryan D. Fullerton (on brief), Fergus Falls, MN, for
plaintiff and defendant in intervention Terry Olson.

Anthony Anderson, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff-intervenor The Hetland Family
Limited Partnership.
Jessica L. Klein, Minot, ND, for plaintiff-intervenors Kyle Simonson and Angela
Simonson.

Kevin L. Olson, Fargo, ND, defendant and defendant in intervention.
                              Olson v. Olson, et al.
                                 No. 20250120

Crothers, Justice.

[¶1] This case is before the North Dakota Supreme Court on the Renville
County District Court’s certified question of law under N.D.R.App.P. 47.1:

      Does the completed sale and conveyance of the real estate in this
      partition action to third-party purchasers uninterested in the action,
      which resulted from a defective analysis and decision by the district
      court of the issue of whether partition could occur without great
      prejudice to the owners, render further analysis of the issue of great
      prejudice moot where the defendant/appellant failed to obtain a
      stay of said sale and conveyance of real estate under either
      N.D.R.Civ.P. 62 or N.D.R.App.P. 8?

[¶2] We decline to answer the certified question. The proceeding is dismissed.

                                         I

[¶3] This matter began as a partition action between family members. The
district court ordered partition by sale. The land was sold by auction. The district
court confirmed the sale and distributed the proceeds. Kevin L. Olson appealed
from the district court’s judgment and orders partitioning by sale, confirming
the sale, and distributing proceeds from the sale. This Court reversed the district
court’s order and judgment confirming sale of the real estate, concluding the
district court abused its discretion by ordering partition by sale because
insufficient evidence supported the determination of great prejudice. Olson v.
Olson, 

, 

 (“Olson I”).

[¶4] Following reversal in Olson I, the Hetland Family Limited Partnership
(“Hetland”) and Kyle and Angela Simonson (“the Simonsons”), two of the three
purchasers of the property, intervened. Hetland filed a “complaint in
intervention” to enforce its rights in the property, seeking declaratory judgment,
and alleging “controversy and uncertainty” regarding its rights in the property
due to this Court’s decision in Olson I. Hetland also filed a “motion for
clarification” asking the district court to clarify its rights and the Supreme


                                         1
Court’s Olson I decision. The district court certified its question based upon the
“motion for clarification.”

                                         II

[¶5] Rule 47.1, N.D.R.App.P., authorizes this Court to answer questions of law
certified by a state district court when two conditions are met:

      (A) there is a question of law involved in the proceeding that is
      determinative of the proceeding; and
      (B) it appears to the district court that there is no controlling
      precedent in the decisions of the supreme court.

N.D.R.App.P. 47.1(a)(1).

[¶6] Certified questions from our state district courts have a more stringent
standard than foreign courts, requiring the question to be determinative because
the parties have a right to appeal. Papenhausen v. ConocoPhillips Co., 

, 

. “This Court has discretion to hear certified questions of law
by the district court and may refuse to consider a certified question if it is
frivolous, interlocutory in nature, or not dispositive of the issues before the
district court.” K.L.T. v. Exec. Dir. of Hum. Serv. Dep’t, 

, 

 (citing N.D.R.App.P. 47.1(c)(1)). “A certified question will not be answered
unless disposition of the case depends wholly or principally upon the
construction of law determined, regardless of whether the answer is in the
negative or affirmative.” 

 “Answering a certified question that does not wholly
or principally dispose of the issues in the case would constitute issuing an
impermissible advisory opinion.” 

[¶7] Here, the certified question may not be dispositive of the issues before the
district court. As demonstrated by the briefing in this matter, North Dakota has
law guiding the district court on the parties’ request for declaratory judgment.
Therefore, we decline to substantively address the certified question because our
response would be purely advisory. The court should answer the question and
subsequently determine what, if any, additional proceedings are necessary.




                                         2
                                     III

[¶8] We decline to answer the certified question. The proceeding is dismissed.

[¶9] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr




                                      3