With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". would receive nothing; her position is, obviously, that a “resolution” means she would receive part of the estate. But that is not what the stipulation requires. [¶ 17] Because the contract was an unenforceable agreement to agree, we hold the district court properly dismissed Shirley Hageness’s separate action for breach of a stipulated contract. [¶ 18] We affirm. [¶ 19] MESCHKE, MARING, NEUMANN and SANDSTROM, JJ., concur. 1 . Despite the broad control discussed in Lawrence, 217 N.W.2d at 796, a court does not retain management and control over a stipulation when the case has been dismissed. When a district court dismisses an action, it relinquishes subject-matter jurisdiction over the merits of the case. See Albrecht v. Metro Area Ambulance, 1998 ND 132, ¶¶ 13-14, 580 N.W.2d 583 (<HOLDING>); cf. Jones v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco

A: holding that dismissal for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction must be without prejudice because the court having determined that it lacks jurisdiction over the action is incapable of reaching a disposition on the merits of the underlying claims emphasis in original
B: holding a district court lost subjectmatter jurisdiction over the merits of the case when it issued an order of dismissal without prejudice
C: holding that a district courts order of dismissal with prejudice was a nullity because the court lacked jurisdiction
D: holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction and subjectmatter jurisdiction is essential to courts authority to hear case
B.