Frank Biegelmeier

The case involved a will contest over the estate of Eugene J. Podgursky, a veteran who had lived in the Sorensons' foster home and executed a will leaving his property to them. The United States, as contestant, challenged the will on grounds that Podgursky lacked testamentary capacity due to longstanding mental illness and that the will resulted from undue influence. After a trial, the circuit court admitted the will to probate, finding sufficient evidence of capacity. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings on Podgursky's understanding of the will's terms and his intent were not clearly erroneous, based on testimony from the drafting attorney and witnesses who observed the execution.

family lawproperty

In State v. O'Connor, the defendant was convicted by a jury of third-degree burglary and faced enhanced sentencing under South Dakota's habitual criminal statutes based on prior felony convictions. On appeal, he challenged the use of his post-arrest silence for impeachment during cross-examination and closing arguments, as well as the prosecutor's filing of the habitual offender allegations, claiming violations of due process. The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the conviction, reasoning that no objections were raised at trial to preserve the evidentiary issues for review and that the prosecutor had properly fulfilled statutory duties in alleging the prior convictions. The court noted that any inconsistencies in prosecutorial practice across cases did not provide grounds to reverse a valid conviction in this instance.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned income beneficiaries of a testamentary trust who petitioned to vacate a prior court order approving the trustee bank's annual account. They sought reallocation of proceeds from the 1973 sale of an underproductive half-interest in farmland, arguing that a portion should be distributed to them as income rather than allocated entirely to principal, based on the trustee's duty regarding unproductive property. The trust originated from Max A. Kuehn's will, with the bank as sole trustee after another trustee's death, and the land had appreciated significantly while generating minimal annual income. The petitioners claimed they lacked notice of their rights at the initial hearing on the account, which had been approved without objection. The opinion outlines the procedural history, trust terms, title history, and references Restatement of Trusts sections on allocation for delayed conversion of such assets.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute over the sale of two four-plex apartment buildings where the plaintiffs claimed that mutual mistakes in the legal descriptions in the earnest money contracts and deeds resulted in the defendants receiving more property than intended, seeking reformation of the instruments and reconveyance of the excess land. The trial court entered judgment for the defendants, finding no mutual mistake and that the deeds reflected the parties' intentions, applying a clear and convincing evidence standard for reformation. The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the Bank's claim because the Bank held no title or interest in the property and thus lacked standing to pursue reformation. As to plaintiff Kittelson, the owner, a majority of the court reversed and remanded to reopen the trial so she could testify, while affirming the judgment against the Bank.

propertyprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs who operated a campground outside the City of Deadwood suing the city for damages after it shut off their water service due to an unpaid bill owed by a prior owner of part of the property. The trial court awarded plaintiffs $600 in damages, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that city ordinances authorized only a lawsuit to collect unpaid water bills rather than service disconnection, did not apply to property outside city limits, and could not be used to cut off service for a collateral debt unrelated to the plaintiffs' own usage, consistent with prior precedent. The court also noted that the defendant had not properly preserved objections to the sufficiency of the evidence on damages through required procedural steps like a new trial motion.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a rear-end automobile collision at a traffic light in which the plaintiff claimed neck injuries causing pain, limited mobility, and interference with recreational activities. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiff $2,500 in damages, covering medical expenses, vehicle damage, and a modest amount for pain, suffering, and permanent injury. The plaintiff appealed, arguing the award was insufficient. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings on the extent of the subjective injuries, minimal prescribed treatments, and the plaintiff's continued activities were not clearly erroneous and that appellate courts must defer to the trial judge's assessment of damages in such cases.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a condemnation action by the City of Sioux Falls to acquire property owned by the Nauseds, which included a portion leased to Sioux Brake and Equipment Company for an unexpired term of about four years and four months at $225 per month. The trial court awarded the owners $70,000 for the land and fixtures but determined that Sioux Brake's leasehold had no compensable value because its fair rental value did not exceed the rent reserved. Sioux Brake appealed, arguing that the lease was worth more than the contract rent and that it should receive compensation. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the burden was on the tenant to prove the lease's fair market value exceeded the reserved rent, and that the trial court's findings were supported by the evidence and not clearly erroneous.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit arising from a truck collision in which the defendant’s liability was undisputed. The plaintiff sought damages for injuries including aggravation of pre-existing degenerative arthritis and disc disease, supported by medical testimony describing soft-tissue injuries superimposed on those conditions. The trial court instructed the jury on damages for aggravation of pre-existing ailments and other elements, and the jury returned a verdict of $85,500. On appeal, the defendant challenged the use of “aggravation” in the instructions and claimed the verdict was excessive. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the instructions when read as a whole and that the verdict did not meet the high threshold for reversal as excessive.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Hall v. Salem Independent School District No. 17, a school principal challenged the district's non-renewal of his contract after the board followed statutory procedures for notice, evaluation file review, and a hearing under SDCL 13-43-10 and 13-43-10.1, culminating in a final decision on March 27, 1973. The principal filed a notice of appeal to circuit court on June 20 but served it on the board only on June 26, prompting the district to move to dismiss for untimeliness. The South Dakota Supreme Court held that the 90-day appeal period under SDCL 13-46-1, computed per SDCL 15-6-6(a) by excluding the March 27 decision date, expired before service, so the circuit court lacked jurisdiction and the motion to dismiss should have been granted. The court emphasized that strict compliance with the statutory deadline is required for appeals from school board determinations.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Schaffer v. Spicer, the plaintiff sued her former psychiatrist for damages, claiming he breached the physician-patient privilege by providing an affidavit with confidential details from her treatment to her ex-husband's attorney for use in child custody proceedings. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's limited prior testimony did not waive the privilege under the governing statute, but that the privilege must yield in custody matters so that information bearing on the children's welfare could be considered by the court.

family lawhealthcaretorts & liability

In this case, a dues-paying member of a golf course sued the defendant after slipping and falling on a waxed tile floor in the clubhouse while wearing shoes with metallic golf spikes; rubber mats covered only high-traffic areas, and evidence showed the manager knew others had slipped there before. A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, but the trial court granted the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed that ruling and reinstated the jury's verdict for the plaintiff. The court held that questions of negligence and contributory negligence are typically for the jury and that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, reasonable minds could differ on those issues.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a hotel owner (Brasel) suing the City of Pierre and a neighboring property owner (Myers) for flood damage to the hotel basement after heavy rain entered a hole cut in the sidewalk for tree planting, which allegedly caused a retaining wall to fail. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Brasel's claims against the city but denied Myers's motions for summary judgment on the claims against him and his cross-claim for indemnity. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, holding that they were not from final judgments under RCP 54(b) because the trial court had not made an express determination that there was no just reason for delay and directed entry of judgment when fewer than all claims and parties were resolved. The court reasoned that absent those required statements, the orders remained subject to revision and did not terminate the action, consistent with prior precedent like Davis v. Interstate Motor Carriers Agency.

procedurepropertytorts & liability

In this case, a contractor performed road repair work for Jones County after informal requests from county officials following storm damage, submitted a bill for nearly $18,000, and sued when the county refused payment due to lack of compliance with bidding laws. The trial court dismissed the claims for recovery on express contract, implied contract or quantum meruit, and emergency grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that SDCL 5-18 requires competitive bidding and formal procedures for public improvement contracts over $1,500, making noncompliant arrangements void regardless of any emergency or the county's knowledge of the work.

business & regulatory

The case involved a finance company's claim and delivery action against a tractor purchaser to recover possession of a substituted tractor under a purchase agreement that the buyer had signed in blank and that was later assigned to the plaintiff for $10,000. Multiple tractor exchanges occurred between the buyer and dealer, with payments made through the dealer, and the plaintiff amended its complaint during trial to add claims for money damages and fraud and deceit. The trial court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, but the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, ruling that fraud and deceit are questions of fact generally to be decided by a jury and that the trial court erred in directing the verdict on that basis.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute over property titled to a husband and wife as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Without the husband's knowledge or consent, the wife conveyed her undivided one-half interest to her children from a prior marriage. The husband sued to void the deed, claiming it impermissibly destroyed his contingent remainder interest in the joint tenancy. The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the trial court's ruling that the conveyance was valid and severed the joint tenancy. The court relied on the near-unanimous rule that one joint tenant may unilaterally convey their interest to a stranger, thereby terminating the joint tenancy without needing the other tenant's consent, and found arguments based on tenancy by the entirety inapplicable under South Dakota law.

propertyfamily law

In this condemnation case, the State Highway Commission took property improved with a service station under a long-term lease to Mobil Oil Company, with the parties stipulating total just compensation of $76,000 and litigating only how to apportion it between the Foye owners and the tenant. The trial court awarded Mobil $18,800 for its leasehold interest after finding that the economic benefit of the lease exceeded the reserved rent by $3,200 per year, that Mobil would have renewed its options, and that the tenant-installed fixtures enhanced the property value. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that leasehold value in eminent domain is measured by market value of the unexpired term less rent reserved, that fixtures attached to the realty must be treated as part of the real estate for the total award but credited to the tenant in apportionment, and that the trial court's findings were supported by expert testimony and not clearly erroneous. The court also upheld admission of certain business records, noting the presumption that the judge disregarded any improper evidence in a bench trial.

property

This case concerns probate proceedings for the estate of Everett C. Grimes, who died in 1970, focusing on a 1967 transaction in which one son, Lewis, arranged for his father to take out a $35,000 Federal Land Bank loan secured by the father's land, with Lewis assuming repayment. The estate inventory listed both the mortgage and a corresponding debt owed by Lewis to the estate, and subsequent decrees of partial distribution and partition imposed a lien on Lewis's share for that amount while distributing the real estate equally among the three sons. Lewis and an assignee, Parish, later petitioned to amend the inventory and decrees to remove any reference to the debt, arguing it was owed only to the bank and not the estate. The probate court denied the petition, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the transaction created a valid debt to the estate that could be enforced via lien under the common-law rule allowing retention of a distributee's share, that the decrees were final, and that the assignment did not alter the executor's right to the lien.

propertyprocedurefamily law

The case involved a dispute over a promissory note secured by a tractor and trailer, where the bank and co-signer Weiss took possession of the collateral upon default but delayed any disposition under the UCC for over a year, after which the collateral was sold to satisfy a judgment against debtor Otten. Otten cross-claimed for damages, arguing the failure to timely sell or retain the collateral per UCC rules (such as commercial reasonableness and notice requirements under SDCL 57-39-11 and 57-39-15) caused him loss. The trial court dismissed the cross-claim and entered judgment for Weiss. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the delay was commercially reasonable given efforts to collect and litigation timing, and that damages were unavailable under SDCL 57-39-17 until a disposition had occurred, as the proper remedy beforehand was to seek a court-ordered sale.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a bank seeking to recover on three promissory notes originally made payable to third parties and later assigned to the bank by endorsement. The defendants admitted signing the notes but raised affirmative defenses including lack of consideration and fraud by the payees, while contesting whether the bank qualified as a holder in due course. The trial court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the defendants' affidavits failed to meet evidentiary standards under the rules of civil procedure by lacking personal knowledge or admissible facts sufficient to create a genuine issue for trial. The court noted that general denials and unsupported claims did not overcome the bank's showing of value given for the notes, though it directed the trial court to ensure proper notation of the notes' merger into the judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved an insurance company's declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that its auto liability policy did not cover Walter Sparks for damages from a fatal 1966 accident while he was driving his brother's 1956 Pontiac. The trial court entered judgment for the insurer, finding no coverage under the policy's non-owned automobile clause. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court's findings were insufficient because they did not address whether the Pontiac had been furnished for Sparks's regular use—an exclusion the insurer bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence under established precedent. The court noted the trial judge had found Clarence Sparks was the owner, eliminating the ownership theory, and that the vehicle was not a temporary substitute, leaving the regular-use issue unresolved.

business & regulatorytorts & liability