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
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 holding that a district courts order of dismissal with prejudice was a nullity because the court lacked jurisdiction holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction and subjectmatter jurisdiction is essential to courts authority to hear case holding a district court lost subjectmatter jurisdiction over the merits of the case when it issued an order of dismissal without prejudice holding appealable district courts dismissal for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction over enrolled tribal members