From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matrix Properties Corp. v. JCG Investments

Supreme Court of North Dakota
Jun 6, 2002
647 N.W.2d 706 (N.D. 2002)

Opinion

No. 20020011.

Decided June 6, 2002.

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central, Judicial District, the Honorable Cynthia Rothe-Seeger, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Sidney J. Spaeth, Vogel, Weir, Hunke McCormick, Ltd., P.O. Box 1389, Fargo, N.D. 58107-1389, for plaintiff and appellee.

Jonathan T. Garaas, Garaas Law Firm, DeMores Office Park, 1314 23rd Street South, Fargo, N.D. 58103-3796, for appellants.


NOTE: SUMMARY OPINION, SEE NORTH DAKOTA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, RULE 35.1.


[¶ 1] TAG Investments, Carol Grettum, and Jonathan T. Garaas appeal from a judgment quieting title to certain real property and ordering TAG and Garaas to pay costs and attorneys fees, and from an order denying a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment. We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1). We specifically note that under the facts of this case TAG and Grettum have no vendor's lien on the subject real property.

[¶ 2] We conclude that the appeal is frivolous. We, therefore, order under N.D.R.App.P. 38 and 39 that Matrix is entitled to double costs in the amount of $150 and is entitled to attorney fees in the amount of $5,000, for a total of $5,150 for this appeal.

[¶ 3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Mary Muehlen Maring

William A. Neumann

Dale V. Sandstrom

Donald L. Jorgensen, D.J.

[¶ 4] The Honorable Donald L. Jorgensen, D.J., sitting in place of Kapsner, J., disqualified.


Summaries of

Matrix Properties Corp. v. JCG Investments

Supreme Court of North Dakota
Jun 6, 2002
647 N.W.2d 706 (N.D. 2002)
Case details for

Matrix Properties Corp. v. JCG Investments

Case Details

Full title:Matrix Properties Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellee v. JCG Investments…

Court:Supreme Court of North Dakota

Date published: Jun 6, 2002

Citations

647 N.W.2d 706 (N.D. 2002)
2002 N.D. 99

Citing Cases

MATRIX PROPERTIES CORP. v. TAG INVESTMENTS

The major arguments raised by TAG and Grettum have been rejected by this Court in previous decisions in this…