From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schmidt v. Hageness

Supreme Court of North Dakota
Oct 27, 2022
2022 N.D. 180 (N.D. 2022)

Opinion

20220138

10-27-2022

Kathy Schmidt, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Margaret Hageness; Patrick Hageness; Patricia Slaubaugh; Bonnie Strand; Elaine Hornaday; and any unknown parties, Defendants and Lutheran Social Services (LSS); Guardian of Shirley M. Hageness; Scott Landa Lutheran Social Services; Eryn Jager Lutheran Social Services; Diane Osland Lutheran Social Services, Defendants and Appellees

Kathy Schmidt, Gilbert, AZ, self-represented, plaintiff and appellant. Scott J. Landa, Grand Forks, ND, for defendants and appellees Lutheran Social Services as Guardian for S.M.H.; Eryn Jager and Diane Osland. Lawrence E. King, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellee Scott J. Landa.


Appeal from the District Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Robin A. Schmidt, Judge.

Kathy Schmidt, Gilbert, AZ, self-represented, plaintiff and appellant.

Scott J. Landa, Grand Forks, ND, for defendants and appellees Lutheran Social Services as Guardian for S.M.H.; Eryn Jager and Diane Osland.

Lawrence E. King, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellee Scott J. Landa.

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Kathy Schmidt appeals from a district court order dismissing her quiet title complaint based on lack of standing and res judicata. She argues the district court erred by rejecting a document labeled "warranty deed" as evidence of title. The same "warranty deed" was offered in Schmidt v. Hageness, 2022 ND 179 (Schmidt I), to support a quiet title in a different county. In that case we affirmed dismissal of Schmidt's complaint based on standing and res judicata because invalidity of the proffered deed was adjudicated in Matter of the Guardianship and Conservatorship of S.M.H., 2021 ND 104, 960 N.W.2d 811. In S.M.H., at ¶ 23, we affirmed that the "warranty deed" relied on in both Schmidt complaints did not meet the requirements of N.D.C.C. §§ 47-10-01 and 47-10-05; therefore, she did not have a valid property interest and could not bring a quiet title action under N.D.C.C. § 32-17-01. For the reasons in Schmidt I, we summarily affirm here under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte David W. Nelson, S.J.

[¶3] The Honorable David W. Nelson, S.J., sitting in place of VandeWalle, J., disqualified.


Summaries of

Schmidt v. Hageness

Supreme Court of North Dakota
Oct 27, 2022
2022 N.D. 180 (N.D. 2022)
Case details for

Schmidt v. Hageness

Case Details

Full title:Kathy Schmidt, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Margaret Hageness; Patrick…

Court:Supreme Court of North Dakota

Date published: Oct 27, 2022

Citations

2022 N.D. 180 (N.D. 2022)
981 N.W.2d 124

Citing Cases

Schmidt v. Hageness

She argues the district court erred by rejecting a document labeled "warranty deed" as evidence of title. The…