Mertz v. Arendt

4 Citing cases

  1. Lund v. Swanson

    2021 N.D. 38 (N.D. 2021)   Cited 8 times

    [¶16] Our case law, however, demonstrates we have broadly construed subsection 3. SeeJones v. Barnett , 2000 ND 207, ¶ 13, 619 N.W.2d 490 (holding alleged verbal agreements that grantor would retain property interest in the form of "wandering rights" and in prohibiting the sale of the land, made in consideration of conveyance of grantor's one-half interest in the land, were invalid under the statute of frauds); Mertz v. Arendt , 1997 ND 113, ¶ 8, 564 N.W.2d 294 (parol gift of real property brought outside of statute of frauds through partial performance); Hagen v. Schluchter , 126 N.W.2d 899, 902 (N.D. 1964) ("An agreement to devise real property is in effect a contract to sell real estate and is included within the scope of subsection 4 [now subsection 3]."); Heuer v. Heuer , 64 N.D. 497, 253 N.W. 856, 859 (1934) (stating that "[t]here is no good reason why a gift should not be subject to the same rules as a sale, and the cases so hold" in applying the part performance exception to the statute of frauds). [¶17] California has a nearly identical statute of frauds provision to subsection 3.See Cal. Civ. Code § 1624(a)(3).

  2. Donarski v. Donarski

    1998 N.D. 128 (N.D. 1998)   Cited 10 times
    Holding a wife's "limited marketable job skills" and the "substantial disparity in income between the parties" justified an award of permanent spousal support

    " Such decisions have previously belonged exclusively to the parents. See Mertz v. Arendt, 1997 ND 113, ¶ 16, 564 N.W.2d 294 (unequal gift to adult child upheld over challenge from siblings); Matter of Estate of Herr, 460 N.W.2d 699, 703 (N.D. 1990) ("a parent may disinherit children"); Flaherty v. Feldner, 419 N.W.2d 908, 911 (N.D. 1988) (VandeWalle, J., concurring in result) ("a parent may, in his will, disinherit a child without laboring under an insane delusion"). Unfortunately, this clearly established law is apparently irrelevant under the majority analysis.

  3. Zimmerman v. Minot Public Sch. Dist. No. 1

    1998 N.D. 14 (N.D. 1998)   Cited 7 times

    See Schweigert. [¶ 11] A trial court's decision whether an employer discriminated against an employee is a finding of fact subject to review on appeal under the clearly erroneous standard of N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a). Thompson at ¶ 12. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if there is no evidence to support it, or if that court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Mertz v. Arendt, 1997 ND 113, ¶ 9, 564 N.W.2d 294. A

  4. Vezey v. Green

    35 P.3d 14 (Alaska 2001)   Cited 27 times
    In Vezey the superior court described the adversely possessed area as a "rectangular" parcel defined by "a telephone line to the north, Shaw Creek to the east, Old Richardson Highway to the south, and a line 300 feet from the house to the west."

    Only Virginia has adopted a rule that adverse possession cannot be founded on a parol gift of land. Clarke v. McClure, 51 Va. (10 Graft) 305 (1853).See Eldridge v. Loftis, 723 So.2d 562, 564 (Ala. 1998); Andreotti v. Andreotti, 36 Cal.Rptr. 709, 713 (Cal.App. 1964); Mertz v. Arendt, 564 N.W.2d 294, 296 (N.D. 1997); Barnwell v. Barnwell, 476 S.E.2d 492, 497 (S.C. 1996).See Tenala, Ltd. v. Fowler, 921 P.2d 1114, 1120 (Alaska 1996); Swift v. Kniffen, 706 P.2d 296, 303-04 (Alaska 1985).