Robert A. Miller

In Murray v. Mansheim, two drivers involved in a 2003 car accident each sustained injuries, and Murray filed a timely personal injury lawsuit against Mansheim just before the three-year statute of limitations expired under South Dakota law. Mansheim responded with an answer and compulsory counterclaim seeking damages after the limitations period had run, prompting Murray to move for summary judgment on timeliness grounds. The circuit court granted the motion and dismissed the counterclaim, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a compulsory counterclaim for affirmative relief must be brought within the statute of limitations and is not tolled or revived by the original complaint. The court reasoned that the plain language of SDCL 15-2-14(3) and related provisions governs commencement of actions, with no exception for compulsory counterclaims, and distinguished them from defenses that may relate back under the rules of civil procedure.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Miranda, the defendant was charged with third-degree burglary after police found him inside a bar in Pierre, South Dakota, after closing time; he had concealed himself, removed hinge pins from a door, and caused other disturbances inside the premises, though he had initially been a patron earlier that evening. Miranda moved to dismiss the burglary charge, arguing that his prior presence as a customer meant he was privileged or licensed to enter under SDCL 22-32-8, and he also challenged the admission of evidence from his earlier burglary conviction. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss and allowed the other-acts evidence, leading to Miranda's conviction on all counts. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that remaining in the building without permission after closing constituted an unauthorized entry for burglary purposes and that the prior conviction was relevant to intent and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudice after proper balancing under Rule 404(b).

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Denice Moore's petition to modify and increase the alimony she receives from her ex-husband John Moore after their 2003 divorce, where the original agreement provided for $100 monthly payments until her death, remarriage, or age 65. The circuit court granted the modification, increasing alimony to $1,500 per month and awarding costs, citing changes including Denice's worsening Multiple Sclerosis. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that Denice had not sufficiently proven her increased needs or John's present earning capacity. The court held that it was legal error to impute John's new wife's substantial income as evidence of his ability to pay, and noted unresolved issues such as Denice's cohabitation with another individual providing financial support.

family law

This case involves disputes between Cheryl Jacobson and Kevin Leisinger stemming from a prior judgment in which Leisinger rejected a reduced punitive damages award of $25,000 and failed to retry the case within the required time, leading to forfeiture of the original $120,000 award. Jacobson successfully pursued a conversion action to recover the funds after Leisinger refused to return them, and she later sought attorney fees for the related proceedings, which the circuit court denied. Leisinger separately filed a defamation claim against Jacobson based on statements made to police and a victims' compensation program, but the court dismissed it as barred by the statute of limitations since the suit was filed more than two years after he had constructive knowledge of the statements. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded the denial of attorney fees while affirming the dismissal of the defamation claim, primarily on timeliness grounds.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a quiet title action brought by Ronald J. Holecek against Robert T. Sundby and Genae M. Warrington over a strip of land in Pennington County, South Dakota. Holecek claimed a reversionary interest based on a 1959 quitclaim deed from his grandfather to the City of Rapid City that included a condition requiring the property to revert if not used for a public street or utility right of way; the City later conveyed the land while reserving a utility easement. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding Holecek lacked standing and ruling against him on other grounds. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that the City's ongoing reservation and use of the utility easement prevented any reversion and that summary judgment was proper on that issue.

propertyprocedure

North Star Mutual Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action against Glenn Rasmussen seeking a determination that it had no duty to defend or indemnify him under a personal liability umbrella policy for claims involving his Crownline boat. The trial court granted summary judgment to North Star, concluding there was no coverage under the policy. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that insurance agent Mary Henkel acted as Rasmussen's agent rather than North Star's when procuring coverage, because she was not an exclusive agent for North Star, lacked authority to bind it to an umbrella policy, and had discretion to place coverage with multiple insurers. The court reasoned that any failure by Henkel to add the boat to the North Star umbrella policy or obtain alternative coverage could not be imputed to North Star. The decision rested on undisputed facts about the parties' relationship and practices.

business & regulatoryproperty