Schmidt v. Hageness
Opinion
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT DECEMBER 8, 2022 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2022 ND 223
Kathy Schmidt, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Margaret Hageness, Patrick Hageness; Patricia Slaubaugh, Bonnie Strand, Elaine Hornaday, Defendants and Lutheran Social Services (LSS), Guardian of Shirley M. Hageness, Scott Landa Lutheran Social Services, Eryn Jager Lutheran Social Services, Diane Osland Lutheran Social Services and any and unknown parties, Defendants and Appellees
No. 20220219
Appeal from the District Court of Pierce County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable Anthony S. Benson, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Kathy Schmidt, Gilbert, AZ, self-represented, plaintiff and appellant; submitted on brief.
Scott J. Landa, Grand Forks, ND, for defendants and appellees Lutheran Social Services as Guardian for S.M.H.; Eryn Jager and Diane Osland; submitted on brief.
Lawrence E. King, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellee Scott J. Landa; submitted on brief. Schmidt v. Hageness No. 20220219
[¶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 (Schmidt I) and Schmidt v. Hageness, 2022 ND 180 (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. For the reasons stated in Schmidt I and Schmidt II, we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
[¶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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2022 ND 223 (Schmidt v. Hageness) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.