Court Rejects Roth's $110,000 Home Improvement Claim

North Dakota's highest court upheld a ruling denying repayment for improvements made to property owned by a family trust.

Updated on Nov. 8, 2026 in Home Renovation

Gouache-painted editorial illustration of a stack of unpainted lumber beside an unfinished timber frame on open prairie under a flat, overcast sky. — North Dakota's Supreme Court unanimously upheld a ruling denying Mary Roth repayment of more than $110,000 she spent on building materials for a Grant County home owned by a family trust. AI Illustration. Upload story photo >

Live Poll

Should unmarried partners who pay for improvements to a home they don't own be repaid?

The North Dakota Supreme Court unanimously rejected Mary Roth's unjust enrichment claim for more than $110,000 she spent on building materials for a home on 10 acres in rural Grant County. The court upheld the Grant County District Court's third amended judgment, which leaves the property with the Jean L. Ehrmantrout Residuary Trust.

Why it matters

The ruling clarifies that receipts showing money spent are not enough to win repayment; the claimant must show the spending actually increased the property owner's financial benefit. It also signals the dispute has now reached the state's highest court a third time.

The unanimous November 6, 2026 ruling (Docket 20260153) affirmed the Grant County judgment after Roth presented receipts totaling over $110,000 but no appraisal showing added market value. The filings do not address whether any further appeal is planned.

The players

Mary Roth

Roth is the claimant who spent more than $110,000 on home materials and sought repayment after her relationship ended.

Jean L. Ehrmantrout Residuary Trust

The trust holds legal ownership of the disputed Grant County property and was defended in the litigation.

The details

Roth, who spent the money after her relationship with Gary Meyer ended, sought repayment under unjust enrichment, which requires proof of the owner's actual financial benefit. The trust's three sons serve as co-trustees, and the case has been before the court in 2018, 2024 and 2025 before this decision.

2018: North Dakota Supreme Court decided Tornabeni v. Wold, an earlier precedent in this area.
2024: First appeal in the Roth and Meyer estate dispute.
2025: Second appeal in the Roth and Meyer estate dispute.
November 6, 2026: Supreme Court issued the ruling rejecting Roth's claim.

Legal Context

The decision applies North Dakota's unjust enrichment standard as set out in Tornabeni v. Wold (2018), which requires proof of actual benefit to the property owner. It shows the state's high court enforcing that standard even after repeated appeals in the same family estate dispute.

Anyone who pays for improvements on a property they do not own should keep records of the value those upgrades add, not only the receipts. Written agreements about reimbursement made before spending can prevent costly litigation.

The takeaway

Paying for improvements to someone else's property carries financial risk even with documented spending. Get written terms on repayment before you build or renovate.