SCHMIDT v. LSS (2022)

[¶1] Kathy Schmidt appeals from a district court order dismissing her quiet title complaint based on lack of standing and res judicata. She argues the district court erred by rejecting a document labeled “warranty deed” as evidence of title. The same “warranty deed” was offered in Schmidt v. Hageness, 2022 ND 179, 981 N.W.2d 120 (Schmidt I) and Schmidt v. Hageness, 2022 ND 180, 981 N.W.2d 124 (Schmidt II) to support a quiet title in different counties. In both cases we affirmed dismissal of Schmidt's complaint based on standing and res judicata because invalidity of the proffered deed was adjudicated in Matter of the Guardianship and Conservatorship of S.M.H., 2021 ND 104, 960 N.W.2d 811. In S.M.H., we affirmed that the “warranty deed” relied on in both Schmidt complaints did not meet the requirements of N.D.C.C. §§ 47-10-01 and 47-10-05; therefore, she did not have a valid property interest and could not bring a quiet title action under N.D.C.C. § 32-17-01. 2021 ND 104, ¶ 23, 960 N.W.2d 811. For the reasons stated in Schmidt I and Schmidt II, we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

Per Curiam.

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte David W. Nelson, S.J.[¶3] The Honorable David W. Nelson, S.J., sitting in place of VandeWalle, J., disqualified.