Gerrity Bakken, LLC v. Oasis Petroleum N. Am., LLC

10 Citing cases

  1. Hall v. Estate of Hall

    2020 N.D. 205 (N.D. 2020)   Cited 4 times

    [¶22] Generally, this Court has held that "the privity doctrine cannot be applied if the rights to property were acquired by the person sought to be bound before the adjudication." Gerrity Bakken, LLC v. Oasis Petroleum N. Am., LLC , 2018 ND 180, ¶ 17, 915 N.W.2d 677 (citing Hull v. Rolfsrud , 65 N.W.2d 94, 98 (N.D. 1954) ); see alsoGreat Plains Royalty Corp. v. Earl Schwartz Co. , 2019 ND 124, ¶ 28, 927 N.W.2d 880 ; Bismarck Pub. Sch. Dist. v. Hirsch , 136 N.W.2d 449, 454 (N.D. 1965) ; 50 C.J.S. Judgments § 1163 (June 2020 Update) ("A judgment with respect to real property against a vendor or grantor is binding on the purchaser or grantee where the latter acquired his or her interest after the commencement of the suit, but not where he or she acquired it prior to that time and is not a party to the action at the time of rendition of judgment."). In Gerrity Bakken , at ¶ 17, we explained:

  2. N. Oil & Gas, Inc. v. EOG Res., Inc.

    970 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2020)   Cited 8 times
    In Northern Oil and Gas, the Eighth Circuit held that, under North Dakota law, a lessee of oil and gas rights was not in privity with the lessor and thus, res judicata did not bind the lessee to the result of the quiet title action to which the lessor was a party and of which the lessee had no notice and in which the lessee did not participate.

    In North Dakota, "the privity doctrine cannot be applied if the rights to property were acquired by the person sought to be bound before the adjudication." Gerrity Bakken, LLC v. Oasis Petroleum N. Am., LLC , 915 N.W.2d 677, 684 (N.D. 2018). Because Northern acquired its lease before the lessors’ case, no privity exists between Northern and its lessor.

  3. Ward v. Dan & Lindsey Herbel

    2024 N.D. 119 (N.D. 2024)

    We have repeatedly explained that if a defendant has even a "possible claim or interest," that defendant should be made a party and not served by publication as an "unknown person." See, e.g., Gerrity Bakken, LLC v. Oasis Petroleum, 2018 ND 180, ¶ 18, 915 N.W.2d 677 (citing several cases). The majority's requirement of an actual claim asserted by a defendant in a quiet title action may call these cases into question as well.

  4. Estate of Seidel v. Seidel

    2021 N.D. 6 (N.D. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    They argue Leroy Seidel conveyed his gravel interests to James Seidel under the unambiguous language of the 2008 warranty deed. [¶16] In Gerrity Bakken, LLC v. Oasis Petroleum N. Am., LLC , 2018 ND 180, ¶ 9, 915 N.W.2d 677 (quoting Johnson v. Shield , 2015 ND 200, ¶ 7, 868 N.W.2d 368 ), we explained: We interpret deeds in the same manner as we interpret contracts.

  5. Reese v. Reese-Young

    2020 N.D. 35 (N.D. 2020)   Cited 3 times
    Adopting the open mines doctrine by statute and discussing its existence in other jurisdictions

    Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law which we review de novo on the entire record. Fettig v. Estate of Fettig , 2019 ND 261, ¶ 8, 934 N.W.2d 547 (quoting Gerrity Bakken, LLC v. Oasis Petroleum N. Am., LLC , 2018 ND 180, ¶ 8, 915 N.W.2d 677 ). [¶10] The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Tia Reese-Young and ordered Cheryl Reese, as a life tenant, is not entitled to the royalties and bonus payments from the production of oil, gas, and other minerals from the property.

  6. Fettig v. Estate of Fettig

    2019 N.D. 261 (N.D. 2019)   Cited 8 times
    Stating res judicata should not be rigidly applied

    Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law which we review de novo on the entire record.Gerrity Bakken, LLC v. Oasis Petroleum N. Am., LLC , 2018 ND 180, ¶ 8, 915 N.W.2d 677 (quoting Arnegard v. Arnegard Twp. , 2018 ND 80, ¶ 18, 908 N.W.2d 737 ).III

  7. Great Plains Royalty Corp. v. Earl Schwartz Co.

    2019 N.D. 124 (N.D. 2019)   Cited 5 times

    It has been held that all person are privies to a judgment who succeed to the estate, interest, or rights of property thereby adjudicated or affected where such succession was derived through or under one or other of the parties to the action, and accrued subsequent to the commencement of that suit or subsequent to the rendition of the judgment; and one is not a privy to a judgment where his succession to the rights of property thereby affected occurred previous to the institution of the suit. Bismarck Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Hirsch , 136 N.W.2d 449, 451-52 (N.D. 1965) ; see also Gerrity Bakken, LLC v. Oasis Petroleum N. Am., LLC , 2018 ND 180, ¶ 17, 915 N.W.2d 677 (stating "the privity doctrine cannot be applied if the rights to property were acquired by the person sought to be bound before the adjudication"). [¶25] In Hirsch , 136 N.W.2d at 454, this Court considered whether a third party had privity.

  8. Seccombe v. Rohde

    2019 N.D. 13 (N.D. 2019)

    Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law which we review de novo on the entire record. Gerrity Bakken, LLC v. Oasis Petroleum N. Am., LLC , 2018 ND 180, ¶ 8, 915 N.W.2d 677 (quoting Arnegard v. Arnegard Twp. , 2018 ND 80, ¶ 18, 908 N.W.2d 737 ). III

  9. N. Oil & Gas v. EOG Res.

    74 F.4th 899 (8th Cir. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota. Gerrity Bakken, LLC v. Oasis Petroleum N. Am., LLC, 915 N.W.2d 677, 684 (N.D. 2018). The district court had distinguished Gerrity because Northern Oil's interests align with lessor Finkle and were adequately protected in the state court litigation.

  10. Mecosta Cnty. Med. Ctr. v. Metro. Grp. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

    509 Mich. 276 (Mich. 2022)   Cited 27 times
    In Mecosta Co Med Ctr v Metro Group Prop &Cas Ins Co, 509 Mich. 276; 983 N.W.2d 401 (2022), an injured party assigned his claim for PIP benefits to the plaintiff healthcare providers.

    ) (emphasis added), quoting Gerrity Bakken, LLC v. Oasis Petroleum North America, LLC , 915 N.W.2d 677, 684 (N.D. 2018) ; Indus. Credit Co. v. Berg , 388 F.2d 835, 841 (C.A. 8, 1968) ("Ordinarily, a person in privity with a party to a lawsuit, ... under principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel, must acquire his interest in the transaction after commencement of the action or rendition of the judgment."); Wight v. Chandler , 264 F.2d 249, 253 (C.A. 10, 1959)