Court Opinion

ID: 9698132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:42:40.864879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:38.589334
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice,
concurring specialty-
Summary judgment is technically the appropriate remedy under the facts of this case as governed by § 47-16-36, NDCC. I feel obligated, however, to point out the potential for injustice when the Legislature forecloses the opportunity of the courts to relieve technical defaults.
Considering the posture of this case, the statute prohibits us from evaluating whether Taurus has a meritorious defense to the claim of failure of consideration. We said in State v. Haakenson, 213 N.W.2d 394 (N.D.1973), that traps for the unwary on the road to the courthouse should be eliminated. It may not be correct in this case to call the 20-day limitation on responses a trap, anymore than calling all statutes of limitations traps. To the unwary, they are traps. Only the Legislature can make the correction which Taurus expects us to make.
It is not necessary that § 47-16-36, NDCC, be invalidated. There is merit in providing landowners the protection afforded by this statute, especially when they are “actively solicited and canvassed” by shrewd “entrepreneurs.” See Reiss v. Rummel, 232 N.W.2d 40, 43 (N.D.1975). But, as in the case of actions to quiet title, there is room for an escape hatch to prevent unconscionable results. Section 32-17-13, NDCC, permits, on such terms as are just, defenses to be heard even though there has been a default.
If Yourk had proceeded to clear his title under Chapter 32-17, NDCC, Taurus could be relieved of its default and could then claim the benefit of a presumption of consideration. Section 31-11-03, NDCC. Here, it cannot. Taurus could have shown whether consideration was, in fact, paid. Here, it cannot. Taurus could have shown whether this was an “arms length” dealing, and what the customs and usages are. Here, it cannot. To afford Taurus the opportunity to be heard should not be interpreted to mean that it would be assured success on any of these defenses. See Schwartzenberger v. Hunt Trust Estate, 244 N.W.2d 711 (N.D.1976), where I dissented. Giving Taurus a day in court, however, is more consistent with the appearance of fair play and is more consistent with the traditional stability desirable in real property law. The Legislature should give the matter further consideration and, if nothing else, remove the ambiguity. “Equity abhors forfeitures,” (30 C.J.S. Equity § 56a) and courts of justice should not be prevented from granting relief therefrom in proper cases.