The
SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
- Dispute over proposed boat storage/sales facility in
Lake County;
- Appeal dismissed in dispute over buy-sell agreements
related to hog confinement facilities in McCook County
Summaries
follows:
DUNHAM
v. LAKE CTY. COMMISSION, 2020 S.D. 23: Neighboring lot owner contested the
application for a variance as to setback and size restrictions for the
construction of a proposed facility for the storage and sale of boats. Lake County Board of Adjustment granted
variance and issued a Conditional Use Permit.
Objecting neighbor sought relief in Circuit Court through petition for
Writ of Certiorari. Trial court denied
relief. The SD Supreme Court reversed
and remanded, stating in ¶¶ 20-21:
[T]he Board failed to consider
the second prong requiring the existence of special conditions to grant a
variance. The Board made a terse finding that special conditions exist on the
property but failed to meaningfully address the special conditions required by
Section 505 for the Board to have authority to grant a variance. More
specifically, the Board made no determination that because of a particular
feature of the property at the time the Ordinance was enacted, or because of
some “extraordinary and exceptional” situation on the property, a variance was
necessary. The Board also failed to consider whether the denial of the variance
to build a facility exceeding the setback requirements would create “peculiar
and exceptional practical difficulties” or an “exceptional and undue hardship”
on Hodne Homes. The Board exceeded its authority by failing “to follow the
prescribed test” within the Ordinance. Hines, 2004 S.D. 13, ¶ 13, 657
N.W.2d at 234.
For this reason, we reverse
the circuit court’s denial of certiorari relief to Dunham on the Board’s
decision granting a variance to Hodne Homes.
This
decision is unanimous with opinion authored by Justice Jensen.
HULS
v. MEYER, 2020 S.D. 24: This attempted
appeal is dismissed because:
The [trial] court’s order
granting summary judgment did not resolve all of the parties’ claims, and it
was not certified as a final decision prior to the Appellants’ appeal.
The
underlying dispute relates to:
[An action by] Appellants
[who] are part owners of four LLCs [for] specific enforcement of unexecuted
buy-sell agreements against two other members.
[Plaintiffs and Defendants
joined together] to form four limited liability companies (LLCs) in 2006 and
2007. The entities include: Magnum 43, LLC; Rawhide, LLC; Remington, LLC; and
Windmill Ridge, LLC. Under the parties’ business plan, the LLCs would construct
and operate hog confinement facilities on property located in McCook County.
Each LLC owns one facility that is leased to the Meyers who operate it. Three
of the four LLCs feature an even equity distribution between the Meyers and the
individual investors.
The
Court considered this case on the briefs on March 17, 2020, just over a month
ago. The Court’s ruling is unanimous
with opinion authored by Justice Salter.
[language quoted above is taken from ¶¶ 1-2 of opinion.]
These
decisions may be accessed at
