In Peterson v. Feldmann, Milton Peterson sued his sisters in South Dakota to invalidate an amendment to his mother's living trust, alleging it was executed under undue influence while she lived in Missouri. The trust amendment eliminated Peterson's option to purchase family farm property at appraised value and shifted it to his sisters at assessed value, along with other changes to trustees and a forfeiture clause. The circuit court dismissed the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens after weighing the Gilbert factors, finding Missouri an available and more convenient forum because the trustor resided there, relevant witnesses and evidence of undue influence were located there, and some trust property was situated there. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in balancing private and public interest factors, including the strong presumption favoring the plaintiff's choice of forum, which was overcome here by the practical considerations favoring Missouri.
The case involved a dispute over whether a conservator appointed for Evelyn E. Didier could assume trustee roles in two family trusts despite specific successor-trustee provisions naming others upon her incapacity. The circuit court granted the conservator authority to act as trustee in both the Evelyn Trust and the Nicholas Trust. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the decision for the Evelyn Trust, reasoning that Evelyn, as trustor, had the power to amend the successor clause, but reversed for the Nicholas Trust because its successor provisions conflicted and Evelyn lacked authority as co-trustee to alter them. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.
This case involved NattyMac Capital LLC, a purchaser of mortgage loans, seeking a declaratory judgment to invalidate a written satisfaction of mortgage on property in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, along with negligence claims against a title company. The mortgage had been originated by ACT Mortgage Capital, sold to NattyMac, and serviced by ACT under an agreement making ACT an independent contractor and agent; after payoff at a subsequent closing, ACT's certifying officer (authorized by MERS, the named mortgagee) executed and delivered the satisfaction to the title company. The circuit court granted summary judgment against NattyMac on all claims. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that ACT had authority as MERS's agent to execute the satisfaction, that the payoff automatically extinguished the mortgage lien irrespective of any signature or identification issues in the document, and that NattyMac had waived or lacked a viable negligence claim against the title company because the mortgage was already satisfied by payment.
This case involved Edward Thurman seeking additional workers' compensation benefits from his employer Zandstra Construction and its insurer for a 1999 work-related injury. The employer had made its last benefit payment in June 2004, but Thurman did not petition the Department of Labor until June 2008 after receiving a denial letter in May 2008. The Department and circuit court granted summary judgment to the employer, ruling the claim untimely. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that SDCL 62-7-35.1's three-year statute of limitations from the date of the last payment applied and barred the claim, and that the later denial letter did not trigger a new two-year period under SDCL 62-7-35 because the three-year period had already expired.
The case involved a chiropractic clinic that obtained assignments of proceeds from two patients' personal injury claims against a driver insured by De Smet Insurance Company. After receiving notice of the assignments, De Smet settled the claims directly with the patients without paying the clinic for unpaid services, leading the clinic to sue the insurer to enforce the assignments. The magistrate and circuit courts ruled the assignments enforceable, but the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the assignments were invalid. The court's core reasoning centered on the assignments' implication of common-law doctrines against maintenance and champerty, their tendency to discourage settlements amid disputes over treatment costs, and the added burdens they placed on insurers in prioritizing payments.
Alvine Family Limited Partnership sued neighboring landowner James Hagemann, his cattle operation Hagemann Red Angus, and Floyd Demaray for negligence, nuisance, and trespass, alleging that runoff of cattle manure from a winter confinement area on the defendants' uphill property flowed through a culvert into Alvine's stock dams, causing aquatic plant growth and a fish kill. After a jury returned a defense verdict, Alvine moved for judgment as a matter of law on the trespass claim, arguing that an intentional physical intrusion alone establishes trespass regardless of harm; the circuit court denied the motion. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Alvine had not challenged the jury instruction requiring proof of causally related harm in his post-trial motions, that instruction became the law of the case, and the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the defendants' operation was not a substantial factor causing harm to Alvine's property.