IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 179

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

No. 20220109

Appeal from the District Court of Benson County, Northeast Judicial District, 

the Honorable Donovan J. Foughty, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by Crothers, Justice.

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.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

OCTOBER 27, 2022 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

Schmidt v. Hageness, et al.

No. 20220109

Crothers, Justice.

[¶1] Kathy Schmidt appeals from an order dismissing her complaint and from 

two orders denying motions for reconsideration. We affirm.

I

[¶2] On June 23, 2021, Schmidt commenced a quiet title action covering

property located in Benson County, offering a document titled “warranty deed”

as evidence of title. The district court granted the defendants’ N.D.R.Civ.P. 

12(b) motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice based on lack of standing

and res judicata. Schmidt filed two motions for reconsideration arguing the 

court failed to consider new evidence.

II

[¶3] On appeal from an order granting the dismissal of a complaint, this 

Court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and 

accepts as true the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint. Atkins v. State, 

2021 ND 83, ¶ 9, 959 N.W.2d 588. The district court’s order granting a motion 

to dismiss will be affirmed if this Court cannot find potential proof to support 

the complaint. Id. The decision to grant the motion to dismiss is reviewed de 

novo. Id.

III

[¶4] A party bringing a quiet title action must have an interest in the 

property. N.D.C.C. § 32-17-01 (“An action may be maintained by any person 

having an estate or an interest in, or lien or encumbrance upon, real 

property[.]”). A party with a valid interest is entitled to have a court decide the 

merits of a dispute regarding the property. Finstad v. Gord, 2014 ND 72, ¶ 23, 

844 N.W.2d 913.

[¶5] The district court dismissed Schmidt’s complaint based on In the Matter 

of the Guardianship and Conservatorship of S.M.H., 2021 ND 104, ¶ 20, 960 
2

N.W.2d 811. In S.M.H., Schmidt alleged an interest in property based on the

same warranty deed she proffered in this action. The court in S.M.H. found the 

warranty deed did not meet the signature requirements under N.D.C.C. § 47-

10-01 or the witness requirements under N.D.C.C. § 47-10-05. Matter of

Guardianship of S.M.H., 2021 ND 104, ¶ 20. The court held Schmidt did not 

have a valid interest in the property. Id. at ¶ 23. This Court affirmed the

district court’s finding. Id. at ¶ 31.

[¶6] Here, the district court did not err in dismissing Schmidt’s complaint

based on standing. Because the warranty deed did not convey Schmidt a valid 

interest in the property, she failed to meet the requirements in N.D.C.C. § 47-

10-05. Therefore, she did not have standing to bring a quiet title claim.

Additionally, since the invalidity of the warranty deed was litigated and a final 

judgment was rendered, the district court did not err in dismissing Schmidt’s 

complaint based on res judicata. 

IV

[¶7] Schmidt argues the district court erred denying her motions for 

reconsideration. North Dakota does not formally recognize motions to 

reconsider. Rath v. Rath, 2018 ND 138, ¶ 9, 911 N.W.2d 919. If properly written 

and argued, this Court treats requests for reconsideration as motions to alter 

or amend a judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) or motions for relief from a 

judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Denial of a motion to reconsider will not be 

reversed on appeal unless the district court abused its discretion. Rath, at ¶ 9. 

A district court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or 

unconscionable manner; its decision is not the product of a rational mental 

process leading to a reasoned determination; or it misinterprets or misapplies 

the law. Id. at ¶ 10. 

[¶8] North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure 59(j) allows a party to seek 

reconsideration of a district court’s judgment. Hanson v. Hanson, 2003 ND 20, 

¶ 5, 656 N.W.2d 658. This rule can be used to present previously unavailable 

evidence, but should not be used to reexamine facts nor reconsider evidence 

already presented. Fonder v. Fonder, 2012 ND 228, ¶ 10, 823 N.W.2d 504.
3

[¶9] North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a party to seek relief 

from a final judgment if: 1) mistake or neglect occurred; 2) newly discovered 

evidence that could not have been discovered previously; 3) fraud; 4) the 

judgment is void; 5) the judgment was based on an earlier judgment that has 

been reversed or vacated; or 6) any other reason that justifies relief. The party 

asking for relief has the burden to show sufficient grounds for disturbing the 

final judgment and relief will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. 

Shull v. Walcker, 2009 ND 142, ¶ 14, 770 N.W.2d 274.

[¶10] Schmidt did not cite N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) or 60(b), or the grounds available 

for relief under either rule. Instead, she argues she is entitled to an evidentiary 

hearing regarding the validity of the warranty deed because a power of 

attorney was not considered by the district court in S.M.H.

[¶11] The power of attorney was before the district court in this matter. 

Schmidt’s arguments for reconsideration in this case do not meet the 

requirements of N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) or N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b), but instead she seeks

to collaterally attack the conclusion in S.M.H. Therefore, the district court did 

not abuse its discretion denying her motions for reconsideration.

V

[¶12] We affirm, concluding the district court did not err in dismissing 

Schmidt’s complaint, and did not abuse its discretion in denying her motions

for reconsideration.

[¶13] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. 

Daniel J. Crothers 

Lisa Fair McEvers 

Jerod E. Tufte

[¶14] The Honorable Gerald W. VandeWalle recused himself after oral 

argument and did not participate in this decision.