Real Estate Law

In action by govt. to foreclose on mortgage on defendant's farm land after defendant had defaulted on debts owed to Dept. of Agriculture, Dist. Ct. did not err in entering judgment of foreclosure and confirming sale of farm land even though defendant contended that sale price was approximately $200,000 less than what defendant's expert had appraised said land. Dist. Ct. could properly reject defendant's appraisal in favor of instant sale price that was generated through competitive auction. Fact that judgment did not allow defendant opportunity to redeem property did not invalidate judgment where defendant forfeited redemption issue by failing to answer instant complaint and by waiting to raise issue until over year had passed after applicable judgment had been entered.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in RICO action alleging that defendants improperly violated local rule prohibiting potential bidders of tax liens to use more than one agent to obtain tax liens where Dist. Ct.'s ruling was based on determination that plaintiffs could not establish that defendants' alleged conduct was proximate cause of plaintiffs losing any tax liens. While record showed possibility that other factors outside of sheer number of bidders in auction room could play role in obtaining winning bids, Dist. Ct. improperly placed burden on plaintiffs to prove nonexistence of potential superceding causes. Moreover, plaintiffs were entitled to trial on their claims where local rule was created for benefit of unrelated bidders, and where plaintiffs' evidence suggested that defendants took business opportunities away by flooding auction room with bidders that should not have been there.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff's motions for summary judgment in actions seeking declaration that plaintiff's easements to operate oil pipeline under defendants' properties were still in force. While record showed that 10-inch pipeline had not been in use between 1988 and 2006, Ct. rejected defendants' claim that easements were no longer in force because plaintiff had not maintained pipeline. Rather, Ct. found that easements had not been abandoned where plaintiff had spent some money on maintaining pipeline during relevant period, and where pipeline could have been put back into service with additional expenditures by replacing any broken parts.