LUNDAY v. All other persons unknown claiming any estate, or interest in, or lien or encumbrance on, the property described in the Complaint, whether as heirs, devisees, legatees, or personal representative of a deceased person, or under any other title or interest, Defendants (2026)

[¶1] Brent Lunday appeals from an amended judgment quieting title to certain real property. He argues the district court clearly erred in finding that a 2022 deed was not delivered, the court misapplied North Dakota law by requiring manual delivery to the grantee and disregarding constructive delivery through a third person, the timeline of events demonstrates the grantor's intent to transfer the property, and the court erred by relying on later statements of changed intent rather than the grantors’ intent at the time of delivery.

[¶2] We conclude the district court did not misapply the law and its findings of facts are not clearly erroneous. To the extent Brent Lunday asserts paragraph 87 of the court's 44-page order “relies on the wrong deed,” the court's extensive findings as a whole do not reflect a misunderstanding of the evidence and the reference appears to be an immaterial, typographical error. See Ali v. Osman, 2026 ND 156, ¶ 26, 38 N.W.3d 676 (“[I]mmaterial misstatements or insignificant errors will not render the district court's findings clearly erroneous or constitute sufficient grounds for reversal of a judgment.”). Brent Lunday's briefs also do not meet the minimum requirements of N.D.R.App.P. 28; six of the seven case citations in his initial brief were fictitious and citing to the wrong law, as were three of the four case citations in his reply brief. Under N.D.R.App.P. 28(b)(2) and (7), a party's brief must provide citations to authorities. Under Rule 28(l), the brief must be accurate and free from irrelevant matters. Under N.D.R.App.P. 13, we “may take appropriate action against any person failing to perform an act required by rule or court order.” While the appellee did not request attorney's fees, we conclude a sanction is appropriate based on the multiple fictitious or nonexistent citation errors in his briefs. See Ali, ¶ 39. We therefore award the appellee double costs. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (8).

Per Curiam.

[¶3] Lisa Fair McEvers, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Jon J. Jensen Douglas A. Bahr Mark A. Friese