Meuchel v. MR Props.

1

2024 ND 107

Donavon Meuchel, Plaintiff and Appellant v. MR Properties LLC, Defendant and Appellee

No. 20230211

Supreme Court of North Dakota

May 30, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bonnie L. Storbakken, Judge.

Bahr Justice. Justin D. Hager, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellant.

Blaine T. Johnson (argued) and Krista L. Christopherson (on brief) Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellee.

OPINION

BAHR JUSTICE.

[¶1] Donavon Meuchel appeals from a judgment entered after the district court granted summary judgment to MR Properties LLC dismissing Meuchel's action for specific performance. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in disregarding statements in an affidavit and in striking a late-filed supplemental affidavit. We further conclude the court did not err in granting summary judgment to MR Properties. We affirm.

I

[¶2] MR Properties is a North Dakota limited liability company and has two members, Jessy Meyer and Nick Renner. MR Properties owned Lots 20 through 23 of the Golden West Development located in New Salem, North Dakota ("Golden West Shopping Center").

[¶3] In March 2022, Meuchel approached MR Properties seeking to purchase the Golden West Shopping Center. Meuchel offered MR Properties $600,000 for the property, which was the asking price set by MR Properties. Meyer contacted Wade Bachmeier, an associate real estate broker, and asked him to draft a purchase agreement but did not provide specific terms for the agreement. Bachmeier prepared the purchase agreement. An initial draft of the purported purchase agreement is dated May 4, 2022. While Bachmeier prepared multiple drafts of the purchase agreement over the course of negotiations, MR Properties did not sign any version of the purchase agreement.

[¶4] The parties subsequently discovered part of the Golden West Shopping Center building encroached on a neighboring parcel of land owned by MKB LLP, a separate entity in which neither Meyer nor Renner is a partner. Meuchel requested MR Properties acquire additional land from MKB and include it in the purchase of the property. Meuchel hired Toman Engineering to survey the additional land, which Toman Engineering did on May 19, 2022. On May 19, 2022, Meuchel and Meyer signed a "2022 Contract for Earnest Money &Down Payment," which stated:

This agreement for earnest money/down payment, in the amount of $10,000.00, between MR Properties, LLC and Donavon Meuchel on May 19, 2022 is a withstanding contract towards the purchase of above stated property and property discussed with Dave Meyer until purchase agreement is reviewed &accepted between both parties.

This contract is only valid until purchase agreement is accepted &signed at which time the signed purchase agreement will take effect.

Another draft of a purchase agreement is also dated May 19, 2022; neither party signed the agreement at that time.

[¶5] In early July 2022, negotiations between Meuchel and MR Properties broke down after MR Properties discovered Meuchel had instructed Toman Engineering to modify the location of a previously agreed upon boundary line. On July 6, 2022, Meyer sent Meuchel a check for $10,000 with a letter refunding Meuchel the earnest money, stating "there is too much misunderstanding on the terms of the sale of the Golden West Shopping Mall. We feel that an agreement cannot be reached and are refunding your down [payment] money."

[¶6] On July 21, 2022, after MR Properties returned Meuchel's earnest money, Meuchel signed a purchase agreement dated May 19, 2022. Meuchel included an addendum to the purchase agreement, dated and signed by Meuchel on July 20, 2022. This addendum stated:

1. Seller shall be responsible for the repair, removal or mitigation of an abandoned Montana Dakota Utilities gas line.

2. Seller shall take all steps necessary to transfer the Red Shell Roofing System Limited Warranty to Buyer, including payment of the transfer fee.

3. Buyer shall allow and grant an easement for a utility corridor, running east to west along the boundary line of the property for the purpose of installation of sewer and water line's [sic] to property immediately to the west, currently owned by MKB, LLP, subject to property being purchased;

4. This sale is contingent upon Buyer being able to negotiate an Agreement with MKB, LLP to remove and use fill dirt from the property owned by MKB, LLP to the west of and adjacent to the subject property being purchased herein.

MR Properties did not sign the purchase agreement or the addendum.

[¶7] In 2022, Meuchel commenced this action against MR Properties, seeking specific performance of an alleged purchase agreement and a judgment compelling the transfer of the subject property. He requested the district court grant specific performance to require MR Properties to sell to Meuchel the "real property subject to the purchase agreement prepared by MR Properties LLC and signed by Donavon Meuchel." MR Properties filed a motion to dismiss the action with supporting affidavits and exhibits. The court treated the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment.

[¶8] Meuchel filed responses and supporting documents opposing the motion for summary judgment. MR Properties replied and filed additional documents in support of its motion. In March 2023, Meuchel filed a supplemental affidavit. MR Properties thereafter moved to strike portions of Meuchel's November 2022 affidavit and Meuchel's March 2023 supplemental affidavit.

[¶9] In granting summary judgment to MR Properties, the district court disregarded statements in Meuchel's November 2022 affidavit regarding his knowledge of who drafted certain documents. The court also struck Meuchel's March 2023 supplemental affidavit as untimely filed. The court concluded Meuchel failed to meet his burden to show specific performance was necessary and summary judgment was appropriate "given the lack of clearly ascertainable terms necessary to specifically enforce the alleged oral contract." The court dismissed Meuchel's claim for specific performance and entered a judgment of dismissal.

II

[¶10] Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any declarations, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." N.D.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3). Our standard for reviewing a district court's decision granting summary judgment is well established:

A party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In determining whether summary judgment was appropriately granted, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and that party will be given the benefit of all favorable inferences which can reasonably be drawn from the record. On appeal, this Court decides whether the information available to the district court precluded the existence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitled the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law which we review de novo on the entire record.

Petro-Hunt, L.L.C, v. Tank, 2024 ND 46, ¶ 8, 4 N.W.3d 526 (quoting THR Minerals, LLC v. Robinson, 2017 ND 78, ¶ 6, 892 N.W.2d 193).

[¶11] "Summary judgment is inappropriate if neither party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law or if reasonable differences of opinion exist as to the inferences to be drawn from the undisputed facts." Petro-Hunt, 2024 ND 46, ¶ 9 (quoting N. Oil &Gas, Inc. v. Creighton, 2013 ND 73, ¶ 11, 830 N.W.2d 556). However, "[s]ummary judgment is appropriate if reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion from the evidence submitted to the district court." Id. (quoting Krenz v. XTO Energy, Inc., 2017 ND 19, ¶ 17, 890 N.W.2d 222). In reviewing a summary judgment, we also consider the substantive evidentiary standard of proof. See Workforce Safety &Ins. v. Oden, 2020 ND 243, ¶ 29, 951 N.W.2d 187; George v. Veeder, 2012 ND 186, ¶ 6, 820 N.W.2d 731; Dahl v. Messmer, 2006 ND 166, ¶ 8, 719 N.W.2d 341.

III

[¶12] Meuchel argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment by failing to consider evidence submitted by Meuchel while considering evidence from MR Properties.

[¶13] "Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(f), the district court has discretion, either upon a motion by a party or on its own, to strike an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial impertinent, or scandalous matter in a pleading." In re Guardianship of S.M.H., 2021 ND 104, ¶ 24,960 N.W.2d 811; see also Buchholz v. Buchholz, 2022 ND 203, ¶ 32, 982 N.W.2d 275. A court may consider a motion to strike at any time. Buchholz, at ¶ 32. While motions to strike are generally not favored, Collection Ctr., Inc. v. Bydal, 2011 ND 63, ¶ 29, 795 N.W.2d 667, we review a district court's decision to strike under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(f) for an abuse of discretion, S.M.H., at ¶ 24. A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination. Id.

[¶14] Rule 12(f), N.D.R.Civ.P., provides what a district court "may strike from a pleading." N.D.R.Civ.P. 7(a) identifies the "pleadings" allowed under the Rules of Civil Procedure. An "affidavit" is not a pleading under Rule 7(a). Some cases hold Rule 12(f) motions to strike only apply to "pleadings," not affidavits. See, e.g., Lombard v. MCI Telecomm. Corp., 13 F.Supp.2d 621, 625 (N.D. Ohio 1998) ("While some courts have employed Rule 12(f) to strike an affidavit...