Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In October 2014, while guiding a hunting party on their property, the Olsens' son observed a crop duster spraying herbicide, which allegedly damaged the Olsens' ponderosa pine trees. The Olsens claimed the herbicide caused significant damage and death to the trees. They filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, who argued that expert testimony was required to prove causation. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, leading to the Olsens' appeal.The Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Spink County, South Dakota, reviewed the case. The court found that without expert testimony, a jury would be left to speculate about the cause of the damage to the trees. The court noted that the fields of chemistry, botany, and agronomy were beyond the understanding of a typical layperson. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the Olsens' complaint in its entirety.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the appeal. The court affirmed the circuit court's decision regarding the need for expert testimony to establish causation for the damage to the trees. However, it reversed the summary judgment on the claims of trespass, statutory nuisance, and common law nuisance, noting that these claims do not require proof of damages to survive summary judgment. The court remanded these claims for further proceedings, allowing the Olsens to potentially recover nominal damages. The court affirmed the summary judgment on the claims of promissory estoppel and civil conspiracy due to the lack of evidence on causation for damages. View "Estate of Olsen v. Agtegra Cooperative" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over the ownership of five parcels of land in Aurora County, South Dakota. The plaintiff, Edward Mohnen, initiated a quiet title action to determine the ownership of these parcels, which were titled in his father's name after his father died intestate in 1969. The defendants included the estate of Edward's late brother, John Mohnen, and the John J. Mohnen Trust. John's Estate counterclaimed, asserting that it held a complete fee interest in all the disputed parcels through adverse possession and also asserted the affirmative defense of laches.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in Aurora County, South Dakota, rejected both the laches defense and adverse possession theory. It determined ownership for the five tracts at issue, applying intestacy laws to evidence concerning the current state of record title.Upon review, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reversed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the lower court erred in its interpretation of the adverse possession claim under South Dakota Codified Laws (SDCL) 15-3-15. The Supreme Court clarified that SDCL 15-3-15 requires only proof of “(1) claim and color of title made in good faith, (2) ten successive years in possession, and (3) payment of all taxes legally assessed.” The court found that John's Estate met these requirements and thus, reversed the lower court's decision denying John’s Estate’s adverse possession claim under SDCL 15-3-15. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Mohnen v. Estate of Mohnen" on Justia Law

The case involves J and L Farms, Inc. (J&L), a South Dakota company, and First Bank, a Florida banking corporation. J&L had an ongoing business relationship with Jackman Wagyu Beef, LLC (Jackman), a Florida-registered company, where Jackman would purchase cattle from J&L. In 2018, Jackman proposed a change in their payment terms, offering to pay for the cattle within 30 days of placing an order, instead of paying prior to the cattle being shipped. To secure each payment, Jackman proposed that J&L would be given a bank guarantee from First Bank. First Bank issued three separate guaranty letters to J&L to secure payment for the sale of cattle. However, Jackman failed to provide full payment for two orders, and First Bank refused to satisfy the outstanding balance.The circuit court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Brown County, South Dakota, entered a default judgment against Jackman after it failed to plead or defend against J&L’s complaint. First Bank filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that it did not have sufficient minimum contacts for a South Dakota court to exercise personal jurisdiction over it. The circuit court denied the motion.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court's decision. The Supreme Court found that First Bank had sufficient minimum contacts with South Dakota to establish personal jurisdiction. The court reasoned that First Bank purposefully availed itself of the privileges of acting in South Dakota by issuing three guaranty letters to J&L, a South Dakota company, to facilitate the purchase of South Dakota cattle. The court also found that the cause of action against First Bank arose from its activities directed at South Dakota, and that the acts of First Bank had a substantial connection with South Dakota, making the exercise of jurisdiction over First Bank reasonable. View "J&l Farms" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the will of Dennis Schmeling, who left his farmland to his sister-in-law, Sharon, in his 2021 will. Two of Dennis's brothers and one nephew contested the will, alleging undue influence by Sharon. The Estate moved for summary judgment, arguing that the contestants could not show that the devise was the result of undue influence, based on a previous court decision (In re Estate of Tank). The circuit court agreed with the Estate, concluding that there was no evidence showing that Dennis had a testamentary disposition toward the contestants and that the contestants did not present evidence showing that Sharon participated in the drafting of the disputed will or engaged in acts of undue influence. The contestants appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reversed the circuit court's decision and remanded the case. The Supreme Court found that the circuit court had erred by granting summary judgment on grounds not raised by the parties and by granting the Estate's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that there were material issues of fact in dispute on the contestants' claim that the 2021 Will was the result of Sharon’s undue influence. Therefore, the circuit court erred in granting the Estate’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court also found that the circuit court erred in denying the contestants' partial motion for summary judgment, as it was undisputed that neither the 2002 Will nor the 2021 Will contains language expressly disinheriting the contestants. View "In re Estate Of Schmeling" on Justia Law

In South Dakota, Emily Bialota sought to gain title to a property previously owned by Lakota Lakes, LLC, which was sold at a tax sale due to unpaid property taxes. Bialota argued that she had properly served Lakota Lakes with a notice of intent to take tax deed, while Lakota Lakes claimed it had not been validly served, rendering the tax deed void. The circuit court granted Lakota Lakes' motion for summary judgment, determining that Bialota had not properly served the notice. Bialota appealed this decision. The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed and remanded the lower court's decision. It held that under Minnesota law, which Lakota Lakes operated under, the Minnesota Secretary of State was the valid agent for service of process as Lakota Lakes had been administratively terminated and failed to maintain a registered agent for service of process. The court further held that Bialota had personally served the notice on the Minnesota Secretary of State, which was deemed proper under South Dakota law. Therefore, the court concluded that Bialota had correctly served Lakota Lakes and was entitled to the tax deed to the property. View "Bialota V. Lakota Lakes" on Justia Law

In 1999, Bernard Stockwell had his agriculturally zoned property in McCook County, South Dakota, replatted into five individual lots. In 2022, he sought an opinion from the McCook County Zoning Administrator on the number of building eligibilities for his lots. The Zoning Administrator determined that all five lots shared one building eligibility, based on her interpretation of the 2014 McCook County Zoning Ordinance. Stockwell appealed this decision to the McCook County Board of Adjustment (BOA), arguing each lot should have its own building eligibility. The BOA sided with the Zoning Administrator.Stockwell then petitioned the Circuit Court for a writ of certiorari and sought declaratory relief. The County sought summary judgment, which the Circuit Court granted. Stockwell appealed to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.The Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court’s decision. The Court held that the 2014 zoning ordinance unambiguously refers to its own effective date, and the Circuit Court erred by not applying this definition, despite recognizing that Stockwell’s lots meet this definition. The Court also noted that if the County wishes to change the definition, it is up to the County’s legislative body, not the courts, to do so. View "Stockwell V. Mccook County Board Of Commissioners" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota, Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores and One Shot, LLC, filed a petition against the City of Wall, South Dakota, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission for the City. Love’s, a corporation that operates 24-hour truck stops, entered into an agreement to purchase a 13-acre parcel of land from One Shot, contingent on obtaining the necessary zoning and permitting approvals from the city. After the City Council denied Love's rezoning and building permit applications, Love’s filed a petition for writ of mandamus, writ of certiorari, and request for declaratory relief with the circuit court. The circuit court granted Love's petition in part, declaring that the City’s Zoning Ordinance did not apply to the property and required the City to reconsider Love's application for a building permit. The City Council reconsidered and again denied Love's building permit application. Love’s then filed a motion for order to show cause requesting the circuit court to find the City in contempt of the court’s order and sought issuance of a building permit. The circuit court found the City in contempt and ordered the City to issue Love's a building permit. The City appealed.The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision. The Supreme Court found that the circuit court order was clearly erroneous in finding that the City willfully and contumaciously violated the court’s order to reconsider and vote on Love's requested building permit. The Supreme Court also noted that the circuit court’s remedy for its finding of contempt was inconsistent with the purpose of civil contempt and exceeded its authority by imposing a punitive, rather than coercive civil contempt remedy. The court's order to issue a building permit was punitive and denied the City the opportunity to purge itself of contempt and come into compliance with the original court order. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s finding of contempt and the order issuing a building permit to Love's. View "Love’s Travel Stops V. City Of Wall" on Justia Law

A South Dakota resident, Abby Engel, commenced a divorce action against nonresident defendant Collin Geary in South Dakota. Geary objected to the jurisdiction of the South Dakota court and the sufficiency of the service of process. The court dismissed Geary’s objections and entered a divorce judgment in Engel's favor, dividing the couple's property and imposing certain financial obligations on Geary. Geary appealed, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him and thus could not make orders affecting him or his property interests.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reversed the lower court's decision. The Court found that the lower court lacked personal jurisdiction over Geary as he had not purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in South Dakota, and the cause of action did not arise from his activities directed at South Dakota. The Court also determined that the lower court erred when it divided the parties' property and imposed financial obligations on Geary, despite lacking personal jurisdiction over him. The Court concluded that while the lower court had jurisdiction to grant Engel a divorce, it did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate Geary's property interests or impose financial obligations on him. View "Engel V. Geary" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota, the dispute involves a married couple, Michael Erickson and Tara Erickson, who got divorced and had a stipulation and agreement (the Agreement) incorporated into their divorce decree, to settle matters such as child support and custody. Tara claimed the couple's two minor children as dependents on her tax returns since 2018, believing the Agreement allowed her to do so. However, in 2022, Michael argued that he was entitled to claim the children as dependents per the Agreement's language and moved to enforce the Agreement and hold Tara in contempt. In turn, Tara moved to modify the divorce decree and Agreement, alleging a mistake in the language Michael cited.The circuit court found that the provision of the Agreement upon which Michael relied was due to a drafting error, denied Michael’s requests, and granted Tara’s motion to revise the Agreement and her request for attorney fees. The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court agreed with the circuit court that the Agreement was ambiguous and that, based on the parties' intent shown through parol evidence, Tara was meant to be the one to claim the children as dependents. Therefore, the Court found that Tara did not willfully disobey the court order as Michael alleged. However, the Court reversed the circuit court's award of attorney fees to Tara, finding that it did not make the necessary findings to support the reasonableness of the fees. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this issue. View "Erickson V. Erickson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment for Lakota Lakes and denying Emily Bialota's cross-motion for summary judgment in this quiet title action, holding that Bialota accomplished valid service on the Minnesota Secretary of State.Bialota brought an action to quiet title in Pennington County, alleging that she had fee simple ownership in real property previously owned by Lakota Lakes but later sold at a tax sale. In its summary judgment motion, Lakota Lakes claimed that it had not been validly served with the notice of intent to take tax deed, rendering the tax deed void. In her cross-motion for summary judgment, Bialota argued that service upon Lakota Lakes was proper and that Pennington County had correctly issued a tax deed based upon her affidavit of completed service. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) South Dakota law controlled this Court's determination whether Bialota personally served the Secretary as Lakota Lakes' registered agent; (2) Bialota accomplished valid service on the Secretary; and (3) Bialota was entitled to the tax deed to the property. View "Bialota v. Lakota Lakes, LLC" on Justia Law