Court Opinion

ID: 9513536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:37:23.554703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:53.970812
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice.
[¶ 1] In 1999, an unmarried couple tried to rent from David and Mary Peterson. The Petersons refused because the unmarried couple were seeking to cohabit. The North Dakota Fair Housing Council (“Housing Council”) and Robert and Patricia Kippen — the unmarried couple, who had since married — sued, claiming housing discrimination in violation of the North Dakota Human Rights Act. They appeal the summary judgment dismissing their claims. We affirm, concluding the Peter-sons lawfully refused to rent to the unmarried couple seeking to cohabit.
I
[¶ 2] On March 8, 1999, Robert Kippen and Patricia DePoe tried to rent a house or duplex from the Petersons. The Peter-sons refused because the couple was unmarried and seeking to unlawfully cohabit. *554In April 1999, the couple married. On August 26, 1999, the North Dakota Fair Housing Council, a nonprofit corporation, and the Kippens sued the Petersons, alleging housing discrimination in violation of N.D.C.C. ch. 14-02.4, the North Dakota Human Rights Act.
[¶ 3] The Petersons moved to dismiss the Housing Council for lack of standing, arguing the Housing Council was not an “aggrieved person” entitled to relief under the housing statute. The district court granted the motion, holding the Housing Council lacked standing under the North Dakota Human Rights Act and holding it was not a real party in interest. The Housing Council appealed from the dismissal, arguing it is an aggrieved party and has standing to sue the Petersons.
[¶ 4] Subsequent to the dismissal of the Housing Council, the district court dismissed the Kippens’ claim by summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Peter-sons, concluding no genuine issue of material fact existed, North Dakota public policy disfavored cohabitation, and, based on the North Dakota Human Rights Act and North Dakota’s cohabitation statute, the Petersons were entitled to deny the Kip-pens housing.1 The Kippens appealed, arguing the district court misinterpreted North Dakota law.
[¶ 5] The Housing Council’s and the Kippens’ appeals were timely. The district court had jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. § 27-05-06. This Court has jurisdiction under N.D. Const, art. VI, § 6, and N.D.C.C. § 28-27-01.
II
[¶ 6] We are asked to decide whether refusing to rent to an unmarried couple because they are seeking to cohabit violates the discriminatory housing practices provision of the North Dakota Human. Rights Act, N.D.C.C. § 14-02.4-12. The question is one of statutory interpretation, a question of law, fully reviewable on appeal. Gregory v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 1998 ND 94, ¶ 26, 578 N.W.2d 101.
[¶ 7] North Dakota Century Code § 12.1-20-10 provides:
Unlawful cohabitation. A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if he or she lives openly and notoriously with a person of the opposite sex as a married couple without being married to the other person.
*555[¶ 8] The pertinent human rights statute in effect at the time of the alleged violation, North Dakota Century Code § 14-02.4-12 (1995),2 provided:
Discriminatory housing practices by owner or agent. It is a discriminatory practice for an owner of rights to housing or real property or the owner’s agent or a person acting under court order, deed or trust, or will to:
1. Refuse to transfer an interest in real property or housing accommodation to a person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental disability, or status with respect to marriage or public assistance;
2. Discriminate against a person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the transfer of an interest in real property or housing accommodation because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental disability, or status with respect to marriage or public assistance; or
3. Indicate or publicize that the transfer of an interest in real property or housing accommodation by persons is unwelcome, objectionable, not acceptable, or not solicited because of a particular race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental disability, or status with respect to marriage or public assistance.
A
[¶ 9] We have not previously addressed the relationship between N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-20-10 and 14-02.4-12. The issue, however, has been addressed in a formal attorney general’s opinion and in two federal district court opinions. We begin with a review of the history of the legislation.
1
[¶ 10] North Dakota has prohibited unlawful cohabitation since statehood.3 1890 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 91, § 16. The provision, as codified in 1895, see N.D.R.C. ch. 28, § 7171 (1895), remained essentially unchanged until the 1970s:
Unlawful cohabitation — Punishment.— Every person who lives openly and notoriously and cohabits as husband or wife with a person of the opposite sex without being married to such person, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than thirty days nor more than one year, or by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars.
N.D.C.C. § 12-22-12 (1960).
2
[¶ 11] The 1971 legislative assembly provided for an interim committee to draft a new criminal code. 1971 N.D. Sess. Laws, H.C.R. 3050. The interim committee considered whether to recommend repeal of the prohibition on unlawful cohabitation. One member argued for keeping a prohibition to prevent fraud. See Minutes of Interim Comm. on Judiciary “B” 12 (July 20-21, 1972) (noting Rep. Hilleboe’s belief the statute should be retained with emphasis on fraud). A proposed interim committee draft on unlawful cohabitation *556contained a prohibition if the conduct was “with intent to defraud another or others of money or property,” but that language was omitted from the committee’s recommendation. See Minutes of Interim Comm. on Judiciary “B” 8 (Aug. 24-25, 1972) (noting alternative fraud language).
[¶ 12] Because sexual offenses were a controversial portion of the proposed new criminal code, alternative provisions were submitted to the 1973 legislature in three separate bills. All three bills contain the same language on unlawful cohabitation with the exception that one alternative would have made the offense a Class A misdemeanor instead of a Class B misdemeanor. See A Hornbook to the North Dakota Criminal Code, 50 N.D. L.Rev. 689, 742 (1974) (identifying the alternative bills: S.B.2047, S.B.2048, and S.B.2049). Testifying before the 1973 legislature, Professor Thomas Lockney, who had been a member of the interim committee, said:
All three alternatives continue to prohibit unlawful cohabitation. Under Alternative 1, the penalty is for a Class A misdemeanor; under 2 and 3 a Class B misdemeanor.
Hearing on S.B.2047, S.B.2048, and S.B. 2049 Before the House Judiciary Comm., 43rd N.D. Legis. Sess. (Jan. 17, 1973) (testimony of Thomas M. Lockney, Attorney-at-Law). The new criminal code was approved by the 1973 legislature, with a delayed effective date of July 1, 1975. 1973 N.D. Sess. Laws chs. 116, 117; see also A Hornbook to the North Dakota Criminal Code, 50 N.D. L.Rev. 639 (1974).
3
[¶ 13] The 1983 legislature adopted the North Dakota Human Rights Act. 1983 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 173. The legislative history reflects no discussion of the cohabitation statute.
4
[¶ 14] The issue of a claimed conflict between the cohabitation statute and the Human Rights Act was presented to the attorney general in 1990. In a formal opinion, the attorney general wrote:
N.D.C.C. § 14-02.4-12 provides, in part:
14-02.4-12. Discriminatory housing practices by owner or agent. It is discriminatory practice for an owner of rights to housing or real property or the owner’s agent or a person acting under court order, deed or trust, or will to:
1. Refuse to transfer an interest in real property or housing accommodation to a person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap, or status with respect to mamage or public assistance;
(Emphasis supplied.) However, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-10 prohibits unmarried persons of the opposite' sex from openly living together as a married couple. The North Dakota Supreme Court has not ruled on the apparent conflict between N.D.C.C. §§ 14-02.4-12’s protection of a person’s right to housing notwithstanding the person’s marital status, and N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-10’s prohibition against allowing unmarried couples to live as a married couple. However, there has been similar litigation in other states whose laws prohibit' both cohabitation and discriminatory housing practices based on marital statutes. In McFadden v. Elma Country Club, 26 Wash.App. 146 [195], 613 P.2d 146 (1980), the court held that, notwithstanding a statute prohibiting discrimination based upon marital status, a country club could refuse to admit to membership an unmarried woman cohabiting with a man. Id. at 152. The court’s *557holding was based upon the fact the statute prohibiting cohabitation was not repealed when the discrimination statute was enacted. This fact the court said “would vitiate any argument that the legislature intended ‘marital status’ discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of a couple’s unwed cohabitation.” Id. at 150.
As in the McFadden case, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-10 was not repealed when N.D.C.C. § 14-02.4-12 was enacted. Thus, the continuing existence of the unlawful cohabitation statute after the enactment of N.D.C.C. § 14-02.4-12 vitiates “any argument that the legislature intended ‘marital status’ discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of a couple’s unwed cohabitation.” McFadden at 150.
Additionally, where there is a conflict between two statutes, the particular provision will control the general so that effect can be given to both statutes. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-07. In this conflict N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-10 regulates one particular activity, unmarried cohabitation. N.D.C.C. § 14-2.4-12 on the other hand, regulates several bases for discrimination. Consequently, the conflict is resolved by applying the terms of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-10 to this situation.
Therefore, it is my opinion that it is not an unlawful discriminatory practice under N.D.C.C. § 14-02.4-12 to discriminate against two individuals who chose to cohabit together without being married.
Attorney General’s Opinion 90-12 (1990).
5
[¶ 15] In 1991, House Bill 1403, a measure to repeal the cohabitation statute, was introduced, with the legislator who had requested the 1990 attorney general’s opinion as the primary sponsor. She testified, “As you will see, the Attorney General’s Opinion of May 7, 1990 found that it was not an unlawful discriminatory practice under N.D.C.C. 14-02.4-12 to refuse to rent housing to unmarried persons of the opposite sex who desire to live together.” Hearing on H.B. HOB Before the House Judiciary Comm., 52nd N.D. Legis. Sess. (Jan. 22, 1991) (testimony of Judy L. DeMers, District 17-18 House Representative). Also contained in the legislative history of House Bill 1403 are copies of Attorney General’s Opinion 90-12 and copies of the relevant statutes. The House of Representatives defeated the bill by a vote of 27 yeas and 78 nayes.
6
[¶ 16] In 1999, the United States District Court for North Dakota decided a case involving the alleged conflict between the cohabitation statute and the Human Rights Act and concluded it was not unlawful to refuse to rent to an unmarried couple seeking to cohabit:
On May 7, 1990, the Office of the Attorney General for the State of North Dakota issued an opinion to State Representative Judy L. DeMers on the question of whether it is an unlawful discriminatory practice under N.D.Cent. Code § 14-02.4-12 to refuse to rent housing to unmarried persons of the opposite sex who desire to live together as a married couple in light of the prohibition against such cohabitation under N.D.Cent.Code § 12.1-20-10. See 1990 N.D. Op. Atty. Gen. 43. The Attorney General determined that such a refusal was not an unlawful discriminatory practice. Id.
“The Supreme Court of North Dakota has held that an Attorney General’s opinion has the force and effect of law until a contrary ruling by a court. That court has further held that opinions of an Attorney General are ‘entitled to re*558spect,’ and a court should follow them if ‘they are persuasive.’ ” Fargo Women’s Health Organization, et al. v. Schafer, et al., 18 F.3d 526, 530 (8th Cir.1994) (citations omitted). In this case, the opinion is highly persuasive, and is consistent with an independent analysis of the question presented. Foremost for consideration is the fact that N.D.Cent. Code § 12.1-20-10 was not repealed when N.D.CentCode § 14-02.4-12 was enacted in 1983; nor was it repealed in 1995 when the discriminatory housing practices statute was last amended and reenacted, despite the issuance of the Attorney General’s opinion in 1990. Additionally, when recently presented with the opportunity to speak to the “public policy/morality issue” of N.D.Cent.Code § 12.1-20-10, the North Dakota Supreme Court declined to address it. See Cermak v. Cermak, 569 N.W.2d 280, 285-86 (N.D.1997).
These statutes can be construed “... so that effect may be given to both provisions....” See N.D.CentCode § 1-02-07. The conflict between the two provisions is not irreconcilable because the statutes can be harmonized to provide an interpretation that gives effect to both provisions. The phrase “status with respect to marriage” contained within N.D.CentCode § 14-02.4-12 is not rendered meaningless by application of the language of the unlawful cohabitation statute to exclude unmarried, opposite sex cohabitators [sic]. The statute will still regulate against several discriminatory housing practices based on status with respect to marriage.
Accordingly, the court must find that the allegations of the plaintiffs in. paragraphs 18 through 21 and 27 through 30 have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with regard to plaintiffs’ claims of discrimination based on status with respect to marriage contained in paragraphs 91(A), (B) & (C) of their complaint and said claims shall be dismissed to the extent they allege such discrimination.
North Dakota Fair Housing Council, Inc. v. Haider, No. A1-98-077 (D.N.D.1999).
7
[¶ 17] In 2000, the United States District Court for North Dakota decided a suit similar to this one brought by the Housing Council. North Dakota Fair Housing Council v. Woeste, No. A1-99-116 (D.N.D.2000). The federal court, analyzing North Dakota law and distinguishing federal cases relied on by the Housing Council, concluded the Housing Council lacked standing to sue under the North Dakota Human Rights Act.
8
[¶ 18] The District Court in this case considered the foregoing history and the plain wording of the statutes in deciding to dismiss the claims of the Housing Council and the Kippens.
B
[¶ 19] With this historical background, we turn to the framework for analyzing statutes and claimed conflicts between statutes. Statutes are to be construed liberally to effectuate their purpose. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-01. When the words of a statute are clear, they cannot be ignored under the pretext of pursuing their spirit. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-05. The specific prevails over the general. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-07. Statutes are construed to give effect to each provision. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-07. Repeal by implication is not favored. Tharaldson v. Unsatisfied Judgment Fund, 225 N.W.2d 39, 45 (N.D.1974) (citing Sands’ Sutherland Statutory Construction, Vol. 1A, § 22.13, at 139 and 149 (4th ed. 1972)). Long*559standing administrative interpretations are given deference. Delorme v. North Dakota Dep’t of Human Services, 492 N.W.2d 585, 587 (N.D.1992). Attorney general’s opinions and federal court decisions are given deference if they are persuasive. Werlinger v. Champion Healthcare Corp., 1999 ND 173, ¶ 47, 598 N.W.2d 820.
C
[¶ 20] We now consider the meaning of the cohabitation statute and the meaning of the Human Rights Act discriminatory housing practices provision.
1
[¶ 21] The cohabitation statute was amended to its present form in 1973, effective in 1975. North Dakota’s cohabitation statute, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-10, states:
A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if he or she lives openly and notoriously with a person of the opposite sex as a married couple without being married to the other person.
The 1973 amendment of the statute removed the language “cohabits as husband or wife” and added “lives openly and notoriously with a person of the opposite sex as a married couple.” See State v. Hoffman, 68 N.D. 610, 282 N.W. 407 (1938) (detailing the pre-1973 statute).
[¶ 22] Varying definitions of cohabitation exist. The 1996 edition of Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law defines cohabit as “to live together as a married couple or in the manner of a married couple.” The 1999 edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, at page 254, defines cohabitation as “[t]he fact or state of living together, esp. as partners in life, usu. with the suggestion of sexual relations.” Notorious cohabitation is the “act of a man and a woman openly living together under circumstances that make the arrangement illegal under statutes that are now rarely enforced.”4 Id. The Minnesota Supreme Court has defined “cohabit” as living “together in a sexual relationship when not legally married.” State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 n. 1 (Minn.1990) (citing The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 259 (1980) (New College Dictionary)).
[¶ 23] “In ascertaining legislative intent, we look first to the words used in the statute, giving them their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning.” Douville v. Pembina County Water Resource District, 2000 ND 124, ¶ 9, 612 N.W.2d 270 (citations omitted). “When a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, we will not disregard the letter of the statute under the pretext of pursuing its spirit, because the legislative intent is presumed clear from the face of the statute.” Id. (citing N.D.C.C. § 1-02-05; Lawrence v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 2000 ND 60, ¶ 19, 608 N.W.2d 254).
[¶ 24] In codification or recodi-fication, the presumption is that no change in the law was intended, absent a clear legislative intent to the contrary. See Evanson v. Wigen, 221 N.W.2d 648, 654 (N.D.1974) (a simple change in diction or phraseology — absent a clear legislative intent to the contrary — is presumed to be a change “for purpose of clarity rather than for a change in meaning”) (quoting 50 Am. Jur. Statutes § 445). This Court has stated:
*560Usually a revision of statutes’* simply iterates the former declaration of legislative will. No presumption arises from changes of this character that the revisers or the legislature in adopting the revision intended to change the existing law; but the presumption is to the contrary, unless an intent to change it clearly appears.
The general presumption obtains that the codifiers did not intend to change the law as it formerly existed. Changes made in the revision of statutes by alteration of the phraseology will not be regarded as altering the law unless there is a clear intent so to do.
State ex rel. Johnson v. Broderick, 75 N.D. 340, 27 N.W.2d 849, 864 (1947) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Therefore, we presume the legislature did not intend a change to the cohabitation law.
a
[¶ 25] The Housing Council asserts that North Dakota has decriminalized all sexual relations among consenting adults. The assertion is contradicted by the cohabitation statute as well as the criminal penalties for adultery, bigamy, prostitution, or incest, notwithstanding the consent of the parties. N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-20-09, 12.1-20-13, 12.1-29-03, 12.1-20-11.
b
[¶26] The Housing Council and the Kippens argue the 1973 recodification of the cohabitation statute was intended to retain the statute only as an antifraud provision. Although the minutes of the interim committee clearly reflect that one member of the committee would have preferred to retain only an antifraud prohibition, the entire legislative history shows the interim committee deleted the anti-fraud language from the section, and the 1973 Senate Judiciary Committee was told the statute would “continue to prohibit unlawful cohabitation.” Hearing on S.B. 2047, S.B.2048, and S.B.2049 Before the House Judiciary Comm., 43rd N.D. Legis. Sess. (Jan. 17, 1973) (testimony of Thomas M. Lockney, Attorney-at-Law).
2
[¶ 27] At issue is the term “status with respect to marriage,” which is undefined under the Human Rights Act. Analyzing other definitions under North Dakota law, the district court concluded the “Legislature intended the phrase to mean being married, single, separated or divorced.”
[¶ 28] The Housing Council and the Kippens argue “status with respect to marriage” is simple: a person is either married or not married. Although it is unlawful to deny housing based solely on whether a person is or is not married, the relevant inquiry is whether a person is divorced, widowed, or separated, rather than simply married or unmarried.
[¶ 29] The Petersons argue that although it is true that under the discriminatory housing provision a person cannot be discriminated against because of marital status, the Kippens were denied housing not because they were single, but because they were unmarried and were seeking to live together as if they were married. A review of the cohabitation statute evidences this point.
[¶ 30] Numerous courts have addressed language similar to “status with respect to marriage,” the language at issue here. Those courts disagree regarding the appropriate weight to give to words with an import similar to “status with respect to marriage.” In McCready v. Hoffius, 222 Mich.App. 210, 564 N.W.2d 493, 495-96 (1997), the court differentiated martial status from conduct by concluding the term “marital status” was legislatively intended *561to prohibit discrimination “based on whether a person is married” (quoting Miller v. C.A. Muer Corp., 420 Mich. 355, 362 N.W.2d 650 (1984)).
[¶ 31] The Wisconsin Supreme Court has also concluded refusal to rent to unmarried tenants who choose to live together is based on conduct rather than status. See County of Dane v. Norman, 174 Wis.2d 683, 497 N.W.2d 714 (1993). On the other" hand, Alaska, Massachusetts, and California have concluded refusal to rent to unmarried cohabitants is based upon status rather than conduct. See Smith v. Fair Employment & Housing Comm’n, 12 Cal.4th 1143, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 700, 913 P.2d 909 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1129, 117 S.Ct. 2531, 138 L.Ed.2d 1031 (1997); Swanner v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n 874 P.2d 274 (Alaska 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 979, 115 S.Ct. 460, 130 L.Ed.2d 368 (1994); Attorney General v. Desilets, 418 Mass. 316, 636 N.E.2d 233 (1994).
3
[¶ 32] We seek to interpret our statutes with a goal of giving effect to each. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-07. Implied repeal is not favored. Tharaldson v. Unsatisfied Judgment Fund, 225 N.W.2d 39, 45 (N.D.1974).
[¶ 33] Statutes are to be liberally construed “with a view to effecting its objects and to promoting justice.” N.D.C.C. § 1-02-01. The purpose of the North Dakota Human Rights Act is “to prohibit discrimination ... and to deter those who aid, abet, or induce discrimination or coerce others to discriminate.” N.D.C.C. § 14-02.4-01. Criminal statutes are intended to vindicate public norms, to give fair warning of prohibited conduct, to prescribe penalties commensurate with the seriousness of the offense, and to effectuate other defined purposes. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-01-02.
[¶ 34] When the legislature enacted the Human Rights Act, it is presumed to have known of the existing criminal cohabitation statute. We have said, “The legislature will not be held to have changed a law it did not have under consideration while enacting a later law, unless the terms of the subsequent act are so inconsistent with the provisions of the prior law that they cannot stand together.” Birst v. Sanstead, 493 N.W.2d 690, 694 (N.D.1992) (citing Tharaldson v. Unsatisfied Judgment Fund, 225 N.W.2d 39, 45 (N.D.1974)).
[¶ 35] In essence, by suggesting the Human Rights Act requires that housing be provided regardless of compliance with the criminal code, the Housing Council and the Kippens are asking us to repeal or to give new meaning to the cohabitation statute. We are then confronted with the well-established rule precluding amendment or repeal of legislation by implication. Id.
An implied amendment is an act which purports to be independent of, but which in substance alters, modifies, or adds to a prior act. To be effective, an amendment of a prior act ordinarily must be expressed. Amendments by implication, like repeals by implication, are not favored and will not be upheld in doubtful cases.
Id. at 694-95 (citations omitted). In North Dakota, there is “an established presumption” against amending or repealing a piece of legislation by implication. Id. at 695 (citation omitted).
[¶ 36] Coupled with the “presumption against repealing or amending legislation, we are ... to harmonize different statutes passed by the legislature and give them full effect.” Id. (citing N.D.C.C. § 1-02-07). “Statutes relating to the same subject matter shall be construed together and should be harmonized, if possible, to give meaningful effect to each, without rendering one or the other use*562less.” Id. (quoting Westman v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 459 N.W.2d 540, 541 (N.D.1990)).
[¶ 37] The cohabitation statute and the discriminatory housing provision are harmonized by recognizing that the cohabitation statute regulates conduct, not status. The opposite interpretation would render the prohibition against cohabitation meaningless.
[¶ 38] Like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, we conclude these two provisions may be harmonized while still giving each of them full effect. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-07. It is unlawful to openly and notoriously live together as husband and wife without being married. It is unlawful to deny housing based on a person’s status with respect to marriage (i.e., married, single, divorced, widowed, or separated). It is not unlawful to deny housing to an unmarried couple seeking to openly and notoriously live together as husband and wife.
[¶ 39] In addition, where there is a conflict between two statutes, the particular provision will control the general so that effect can be given to both statutes. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-07. In this claimed conflict, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-10 regulates one particular activity, unmarried cohabitation. N.D.C.C. § 14-02.4-12, on the other hand, regulates several bases for discrimination. The terms of the more specific statute, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-10, prevail.
D
[¶ 40] Although we are not bound by attorney general’s opinions interpreting statutes, we will follow them if they are persuasive. Werlinger v. Champion Healthcare Corp., 1999 ND 173, ¶ 47, 598 N.W.2d 820 (citing United Hospital v. D’Annunzio, 514 N.W.2d 681, 685 (N.D.1994); State v. Beilke, 489 N.W.2d 589, 593 (N.D.1992)). We give “respectful attention to the attorney general’s opinions and follow them when we find them persuasive.” Holmgren v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 455 N.W.2d 200, 204 (N.D.1990). Attorney general’s opinions guide state officers until superseded by judicial opinions. Werlinger, 1999 ND 173, ¶ 47, 598 N.W.2d 820 (citing State ex rel. Johnson v. Baker, 74 N.D. 244, 259, 21 N.W.2d 355, 364 (1945)).
[¶ 41] The attorney general’s opinion is supported by the legislative history of the two statutes and specifically addresses the conflict between them. Attorney General’s Opinion 90-12 concluded:
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-10 was not repealed when N.D.C.C. § 14-02.4-12 was enacted. Thus, the continuing existence of the unlawful cohabitation statute after the enactment of N.D.C.C. § 14-02.4-12 vitiates “any argument that the legislature intended ‘marital status’ discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of a couple’s unwed cohabitation.”
(Citation omitted).
[¶ 42] Although not binding upon the courts, “an Attorney General’s official opinion nonetheless has important bearing on the construction and interpretation of a statute.” Hughes v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 236 N.W.2d 870, 876 (N.D.1975) (citing 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 49.05, p. 240; Walker v. Weilenman, 143 N.W.2d 689, 691 (N.D.1966)). “Such official opinion of the Attorney General is especially persuasive when subsequent legislative action appears to confirm the opinion.” Id.
[¶ 43] Since the attorney general’s opinion was published in 1990, the legislature completed five biennial sessions and at least once considered repealing the cohabitation statute. In 1991, a measure to repeal the cohabitation statute, House Bill 1403, was introduced, presented with the *563Attorney General’s opinion, and defeated. It is clear the legislature was aware of the alleged statutory conflict.
[¶ 44] In light of the five completed biennial legislative sessions and the defeat of the measure to repeal the cohabitation statute, the legislature has impliedly approved the attorney general’s opinion. The implied approval gives even greater weight to the construction of the cohabitation statute and the attorney general’s opinion. See Horst v. Guy, 219 N.W.2d 153, 159-60 (N.D.1974); Walker v. Weilenman, 143 N.W.2d 689, 694 (N.D.1966); State v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 68 N.D. 641, 282 N.W. 411, 415-16 (1938).
E
[¶ 45] A federal district court decision interpreting North Dakota law is not binding upon North Dakota courts. We will, however, respect a federal district court opinion if it is persuasive and based upon sound reasoning.
[¶ 46] Citing a 1990 North Dakota Attorney General’s opinion and a federal court decision interpreting this issue, the district court concluded that refusing to rent to a couple seeking to cohabit is not a discriminatory practice. See Attorney General’s Opinion 90-12 (1990); North Dakota Fair Housing Council, Inc. v. Haider, No. A1-98-077 (D.N.D.1999).
[¶ 47] The Haider court cited Attorney General Opinion 90-12 as “highly persuasive” and entitled to respect. Further, the court stated:
Foremost for consideration is the fact that N.D. CentCode § 12.1-20-10 was not repealed when N.D. CentCode § 14-02.4-12 was enacted in 1983; nor was it repealed in 1995 when the discriminatory housing practices statute was last amended and reenacted, despite the issuance of the Attorney General’s opinion in 1990. Additionally, when recently presented with the opportunity to speak to the “public policy/morality issue” of N.D. CentCode § 12.1-20-10, the North Dakota Supreme Court declined to address it. See Cermak v. Cermak, 569 N.W.2d 280, 285-86 (N.D.1997).
These statutes can be construed “... so that effect may be given to both provisions.... ” See N.D. CentCode § 1-02-07. The conflict between the two provisions is not irreconcilable because the statutes can be harmonized to provide an interpretation that gives effect to both provisions. The phrase “status with respect to marriage” contained within N.D. CentCode § 14-02.4-12 is not rendered meaningless by application of the language of the unlawful cohabitation statute to exclude unmarried, opposite sex cohabitators [sic]. The statute will still regulate against several discriminatory housing practices based on status with respect to marriage.
North Dakota Fair Housing Council, Inc. v. Haider, No. A1-98-077, 7-8 (D.N.D.1999).
[¶ 48] The federal court decision is entitled to respect.
Ill
[¶ 49] Under the words of the statute, the rules of statutory construction, and the legislative, administrative, and judicial history, we conclude it is not an unlawful discriminatory practice under N.D.C.C. § 14-02.4-12 to refuse to rent to unmarried persons seeking to cohabit. Summary judgment was therefore appropriate.5
*564[¶ 50] If we were to assume the Housing Council would have standing to contest the Petersons’ actions, summary judgment would equally apply to dispose of the Housing Council’s alleged claim. Because, as a matter of law, there is no issue of material fact in this case, we need not address the argument that the Housing Council would have standing. See State v. Evans, 1999 ND 70, ¶ 17, 593 N.W.2d 336 (“we need not consider questions, the answers to which are not necessary to the determination of an appeal”).
IV
[¶ 51] The judgments of the district court are affirmed.
[¶ 52] VANDE WALLE, C.J., NEUMANN and MARING, JJ., concur.

. The dissent concludes the Petersons and the district court presumed the Kippens were cohabiting, because insufficient evidence existed to establish the Kippens’ conduct amounted to cohabitation. Since the outset of this litigation, the Kippens have conceded they were cohabiting. In their complaint and in their first amended complaint, the Kippens alleged, "At all times relevant to this action, [the Kip-pens] were cohabitating [sic] as an unmarried couple.” In their depositions, the Kippens acknowledged living together and having sex together at the time they sought housing from the Petersons. The dissent, at ¶ 57, says, "The record does not contain evidence sufficient to show the Kippens committed unlawful cohabitation.” Contrary to the dissent’s conclusion, the district court did not presume the Kippens cohabited, but rather accepted the pleadings, depositions, and record evidence as required by our rules and cases. See N.D.R.Civ.P. 56(c) (summary judgment may be rendered based on the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or other record evidence). By suggesting the district court was presumptuous in accepting the Kip-pens’ concession, the dissent has misconceived the facts and our clearly announced standard for summary judgment. Id.; see also Swenson v. Raumin, 1998 ND 150, ¶ 8, 583 N.W.2d 102 (summary judgment is proper "if no dispute exists as to either the material facts or the inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts, or if resolving factual disputes would not alter the results”).

. The provisions are now found at N.D.C.C. §§ 14-02.5-02 and 14-02.5-07.

. Cohabitation was also prohibited in Dakota Territory. According to the Laws of Dakota, 1862-63, Criminal Code, Ch. 10 § 4:
If any man and woman not being married to each other, shall lewdly and lasciviously cohabit and associate together, or if any man or woman, married or unmarried, shall be guilty of open and gross lewdness or lascivious behaviour, every such person shall be punished, by fine not exceeding three hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding three months.

. Although it is argued cohabitation statutes are rarely enforced, this Court has held the lack of enforcement to be of no significance. See State v. Gamble Skogmo, Inc., 144 N.W.2d 749, 765 (N.D.1966) (laxity in enforcement does not result in a denial of equal protection of the laws) (citations omitted).

. The dissent is based on the flawed premise that the Petersons would have had to prove the Kippens guilty of unlawful cohabitation. The Kippens did not raise the argument and *564did not dispute the fact. The issue before us is not whether the Kippens could have been successfully prosecuted for the crime of unlawful cohabitation, but whether the legislature intended to prohibit landlords from refusing to rent to unmarried couples seeking to cohabit.