Schmidt v. Hageness
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Schmidt v. Hageness (N.D. 2022)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OCTOBER 27, 2022 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2022 ND 180
Kathy Schmidt, Plaintiff and Appellant v.
Margaret Hageness; Patrick Hageness;
Patricia Slaubaugh; Bonnie Strand;
Elaine Hornaday; and any unknown parties, 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, Defendants and Appellees No. 20220138
Appeal from the District Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Robin A. Schmidt, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Kathy Schmidt, Gilbert, AZ, self-represented, plaintiff and appellant.
Scott J. Landa, Grand Forks, ND, for defendants and appellees Lutheran Social Services as Guardian for S.M.H.; Eryn Jager and Diane Osland.
Lawrence E. King, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellee Scott J. Landa. Schmidt v. Hageness, et al.
No. 20220138
Per Curiam. [¶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), to support a quiet title in a different county. In that case 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., at ¶ 23, 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. For the reasons in Schmidt I, we summarily affirm here 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.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.