## Facts

- In 1950, Zoulia V. Svenberg and Maurilla Lundeen conveyed land in Bowman County, North Dakota, to C.J. Clark by warranty deed, reserving one-half of the oil, gas, and mineral rights; the deed was recorded in 1951.
- After later conveyances, Victor R. Uttke acquired the surface estate and an undivided one-half mineral interest.
- Uttke sought to claim the remaining one-half severed mineral interest under North Dakota’s dormant minerals statutes (N.D.C.C. ch. 38-18.1), which permit lapse of unused mineral interests after 20 years if statutory notice requirements are met.
- Uttke filed documents asserting the reserved mineral interest had lapsed and asserted he could not locate the mineral owners’ last known addresses despite a diligent search; he proceeded with notice by publication rather than mailed notice.
- Spring Creek Ranch, LLC (with Uttke as president) filed a quiet title action to confirm ownership of the disputed one-half mineral interest.
- A default judgment initially quieted title in Spring Creek, but successors to the original mineral owners later obtained an order vacating the default judgment based on lack of notice and a meritorious defense.
- On renewed proceedings, the district court granted Spring Creek summary judgment, concluding as a matter of law that Uttke made the “reasonable inquiry” required before resorting to publication, and quieted title in Spring Creek.
- The successors appealed from the summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether compliance with N.D.C.C. § 38-18.1-06(2)’s “reasonable inquiry” requirement to ascertain mineral owners’ addresses is a question of fact precluding summary judgment when the adequacy of the inquiry is disputed.
2. Whether the district court erred by deciding, as a matter of law, that publication notice satisfied the dormant minerals notice requirements.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the summary judgment quieting title in Spring Creek.
- The court held that whether a surface owner made a “reasonable inquiry” to locate mineral owners’ addresses is a question of fact, generally inappropriate for summary judgment resolution.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine factually whether the inquiry and notice complied with the dormant minerals statutes.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes that authorize termination or forfeiture of property interests, including dormant mineral statutes, must be strictly construed and strictly applied.
- Under N.D.C.C. § 38-18.1-06(2), publication notice may be used only after a surface owner conducts a reasonable inquiry to ascertain whether the mineral owner’s address is reasonably ascertainable for mailed notice.
- Reasonableness of an inquiry into an owner’s whereabouts depends on the circumstances and is a fact-intensive determination.
- Summary judgment is improper when genuine issues of material fact exist; determinations of reasonableness commonly present factual questions for the trier of fact.

## Conclusion

The court reversed a quiet-title summary judgment because the adequacy of the surface owner’s efforts to locate mineral owners’ addresses under the dormant minerals notice statute presented a factual dispute that could not be resolved as a matter of law.


Spring Creek Ranch, LLC v. Svenberg, 595 N.W.2d 323 (N.D. 1999)