Opinion ID: 1677102
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: improvements

Text: John contends that the trial court erred in failing to award a money judgment for improvements made to the 16.89 acres by John, including a quonset, [8] grain bins, a warehouse, a barn, corrals, wells, and two underground fuel tanks. The trial court awarded John use of the quonset and fuel tanks for five years, and allowed him to remove the barn and corrals. [9] The trial court further determined that, as rent for John's five-year use of Lawrence's quonset, ownership of the fuel tanks would vest in Lawrence at the expiration of the five year period, and that all other improvements on the 16.89 acres were exclusively owned by Lawrence. John contends that to prevent unjust enrichment he was entitled to a money judgment for the improvements awarded to Lawrence. Determinative of this issue is Section 32-17-08, N.D.C.C., which provides in pertinent part: 32-17-08. AnswerCounterclaim.  In an action to determine adverse claims, a defendant in his answer ... may set forth his rights in the property as a counterclaim and may demand affirmative relief against the plaintiff and any codefendant, and in such case he also may set forth a counterclaim and recovery from plaintiff or a codefendant for permanent improvements made by him or those under whom he claims, holding under color of title in good faith adversely to the plaintiff or codefendant against whom he seeks a recovery. [10] We have interpreted this statute as barring a claim for the value of improvements by one who was not holding under color of title. Greeman v. Smith, 138 N.W.2d 433, 437 (N.D.1965). We further recognized that [t]here can be no color of title in an occupant who does not hold under any instrument, proceeding, or law purporting to transfer to him the title or to give to him the right of possession. Greeman v. Smith, supra, 138 N.W.2d at 437 (quoting Deffeback v. Hawke, 115 U.S. 392, 407, 6 S.Ct. 95, 102, 29 L.Ed. 423, 428 (1885)). John does not claim that he was holding the 16.89 acres under color of title. Therefore, under Section 32-17-08 and Greeman v. Smith, supra , John is not entitled to recover the value of the improvements. [11]