Jon Fosheim

The case involved borrowers who sued their bank after it increased the interest rate on their FmHA-guaranteed loan without obtaining prior approval from the FmHA as required by the guarantee agreement. The borrowers claimed to be third-party beneficiaries of the agreement and also alleged negligence by the bank. The trial court dismissed both claims, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the FmHA had effectively approved the rate changes through semi-annual reports and that the cited federal regulation prohibiting rate increases did not apply to this type of loan. The court treated the motion as one for summary judgment due to consideration of external evidence and found no genuine issues of material fact.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Jones, the defendant was convicted by a jury of third-degree burglary, grand theft, aggravated assault, and committing a felony while armed after breaking into a sporting goods store, stealing a handgun, and pointing it at a police officer. Jones had undergone psychiatric evaluations revealing delusions and mental health issues, leading to a competency hearing where the jury was instructed that he bore the burden of proving his own incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence under SDCL 23A-10A-6.1; he was also tried in a bifurcated proceeding on guilt and sanity. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the convictions, determining sua sponte that the statute's allocation of the burden of proof on the defendant in the competency proceeding violated his due process rights and deprived him of a fair trial, treating it as plain error affecting substantial rights.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved defendant Larry Bucholz, who pleaded guilty to two DWI charges in exchange for dismissal of a habitual offender enhancement. At the initial sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed concurrent five-month jail terms with work release based on evidence that Bucholz had remained sober, but shortly afterward the judge received information that Bucholz had been intoxicated days earlier and that his ex-wife had reported it to police. After a further hearing confirming the new facts, the court vacated the original sentences and resentenced Bucholz to a five-month jail term on one count and two years in the state penitentiary on the other. The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court possessed inherent authority to increase the sentence when it was procured through misrepresentation or fraud on the court.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hageman v. Vander Vorste, the parties engaged in multiple cattle purchase and resale transactions as partners or joint venturers between 1976 and 1978, leading to a dispute over the final accounting after an incomplete 1979 audit that omitted several transactions. The trial court awarded the plaintiff $9,333.03 but denied prejudgment interest, concluding the amount due was not ascertainable at the time of the audit because both parties failed to supply complete figures. The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the denial of prejudgment interest, reasoning that the exact amounts of the undisclosed transactions were capable of being made certain by calculation from reasonably available information within the defendant's control, satisfying the requirements of SDCL 21-1-11.

business & regulatory

In 1957, Rysavy sold real estate to Novotny on a contract for deed that reserved one-half of all mineral rights and one-half of all oil rights. Novotny later extracted and sold a common rock-like material (described as weathered shale or shaly siltstone) from shallow pits on the land for use in surfacing dirt roads, prompting Rysavy to sue for damages on the theory that the material qualified as a reserved mineral. The trial court granted summary judgment to Rysavy, but the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, ruling that a general mineral reservation does not encompass substances whose removal destroys the surface estate absent additional evidence of the parties' intent, and that genuine issues of material fact remained. The court noted that the material was prevalent in the area, had no other commercial value, and that interpreting the reservation broadly would undermine the grantee's ownership.

property

In Buhl v. Bak, a partnership (BAM) sought a declaratory judgment and injunction to establish ownership of minerals, sand, and gravel on a twenty-acre tract (Outlot H-3) that was to be conveyed to defendant Bothwell in 1989 under an assignment of a contract for deed originally involving the Hunts and Jones. The trial court declared that plaintiffs owned all mineral interests and that Bothwell held only a possessory interest limited to pasturage. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed on appeal, concluding that the assignment language created no present ownership or mineral rights for Bothwell, who paid no consideration, was not a party to the documents, and whose interest was subject to the plaintiffs' reservation of minerals in the escrowed deed.

property