Case Title: EVERETT DRILLING VENTURES v. Knutson Flying Serv.

Citation: 338 N.W.2d 662

Docket Number: 

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1983-10-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
338 N.W.2d 662 (1983) EVERETT DRILLING VENTURES, INC., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. KNUTSON FLYING SERVICE, INC., Defendant and Appellant. Civ. No. 10397. Supreme Court of North Dakota. October 4, 1983. *663 Mackoff, Kellogg, Kirby & Kloster, Dickinson, for plaintiff and appellee; argued by Claudette M. Abel, Dickinson. Farhart, Rasmuson, Lian & Maxson, Minot, for defendant and appellant; argued by Steven C. Lian, Minot. PEDERSON, Justice. This is an appeal by Knutson Flying Service, Inc., from a summary judgment awarding $12,075.00 plus interest to Everett Drilling Ventures, Inc. We reverse the judgment and remand for trial on the merits. Everett and Knutson orally agreed that Knutson would provide flying services to Everett at $375.00 per hour. There is a dispute as to whether or not it was agreed that Everett was to pay for time that a helicopter was held on the ground exclusively for Everett's use. During the months of July through November 1981, Everett paid Knutson $22,500.00. At $375.00 per hour, this pays for 60 hours. It is undisputed, however, that Everett used only 27.8 hours of actual flying time, at a cost of $10,425.00. Accordingly, Everett claims that it is entitled to a refund of $12,075.00. Knutson, on the other hand, claims that the $12,075.00 should be applied to the "on-ground" time when Everett had exclusive access to the helicopter. Everett moved for default judgment, or, in the alternative, summary judgment. The trial court concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and ordered summary judgment in favor of Everett. The determinative issue raised on appeal is whether or not the affidavit of Ernest Knutson, president of Knutson Flying Service, Inc., sets forth specific facts which raise a material factual issue. Rule 56(e) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the party opposing a motion for summary judgment may not rest upon the allegations contained in his pleadings, but must present competent admissible evidence which raises a material factual issue: We have recently discussed the requirements of this rule in First National Bank of Hettinger v. Clark, 332 N.W.2d 264, 267 (N.D.1983): In First National Bank of Hettinger, supra, we held that the defendants had failed to raise an issue of material fact where the only mention of the relevant issue, bad faith, was contained in conclusory statements in their brief in opposition to the motion. Their answer did not allege bad faith, and they did not file affidavits in *664 opposition to the motion. Under those circumstances, we held that the conclusory statements contained in the defendants' brief in opposition to the motion were not evidence which would support or establish a factual issue, and did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 56(e). Id. at 267-68. In the instant case, however, a very different situation is presented. The answer of Knutson alleges that the agreement between the parties required Knutson to make available to Everett exclusive use of the helicopter on days to be specified by Everett, and that the $12,075.00 balance was applied to "on-ground" time when Everett had exclusive access to the helicopter but did not use it. The affidavit of Ernest Knutson, although inartfully drafted, sets forth facts which support an inference that the agreement between the parties required Everett to pay for "on-ground" reserve time. A letter from Everett which was attached to the Knutson affidavit clearly establishes that there was a dispute over the terms of the agreement pertaining to payment for reserve time. In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court may examine the pleadings, depositions, admissions, affidavits, and interrogatories, and inferences to be drawn therefrom, to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate. First National Bank of Hettinger v. Clark, supra, 332 N.W.2d at 267; Spier v. Power Concrete, Inc., 304 N.W.2d 68, 72 (N.D.1981); Albers v. NoDak Racing Club, Inc., 256 N.W.2d 355, 358 (N.D.1977). In so doing, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and he will be given the benefit of all favorable inferences which can reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Hastings Pork v. Johanneson, 335 N.W.2d 802, 805 (N.D.1983); Rice v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 198 N.W.2d 247, 253 (N.D.1972). Summary judgment is not appropriate if it appears from the record that there is an unresolved issue of material fact. Hastings Pork, supra, 335 N.W.2d at 805. We are satisfied that the record in this case, when viewed in the light most favorable to Knutson, discloses an unresolved issue of material fact. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for trial on the merits. ERICKSTAD, C.J., SAND and VANDE WALLE, JJ., and PAULSON,[*] Surrogate Justice, concur. [*] Justice WM. L. PAULSON served as a Surrogate Justice for this case pursuant to Section 27-17-03, N.D.C.C.