The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
1) Challenge to productivity-based land assessment fails;
2) Meaningful review of key issue in jury trial precluded by
lack of trial transcript.
Summaries follows:
TRASK v. MEADE CTY. COMM’N, 2020 S.D. 25: Landowners in Meade County challenged the
valuation of their agricultural land.
Landowners secured minor relief from the Meade County Commission
(sitting as a board of equalization).
The Circuit Court affirmed and the SD Supreme Court affirmed. At issue in this case is the propriety of the
change “from a market-value approach to a
productivity-based model” encompassed in the recently enacted
provisions of SDCL 10-6-33.28 to 10-6- 33.37.
This resulted in the landowner being taxed for a substantially large
portion of his land as “cropland” despite the fact it is not used as “cropland.” [The landowners’ ranch land was taxed at 61%
cropland notwithstanding their assertion that only 23% of their property was
actually utilized as cropland.] The Court recognized that this was the first
taxpayer challenge to the new approach adopted by the Legislature. In regard to the alleged “unfairness” of this
new approach, the Court recognized in ¶ 42:
We
understand that the Trasks offer a determined argument that productivity
valuation should be based upon the actual use and production of the land.
However, our role in this appeal is not to determine this claim of inequity
directly. Instead, we must faithfully interpret and apply the statutes enacted
by the Legislature for the specific purpose of departing from a market-based
method of valuation for agricultural land. Lingering dissatisfaction with the
resulting statutory procedure is best addressed by the Legislature, whose
fact-finding committees and task force are uniquely situated to carefully study
the impact of the productivity model statewide and propose legislative changes
or adjustments.
And the Court further noted in footnote 9:
We note
that during the 2019 legislative session, the Governor signed Senate Bill 4
into law, requiring the Department of Revenue, in conjunction with South Dakota
State University to “study the impact of changes to the methodology of rating
soils for purposes of assessing agricultural land.” SDCL 10-6-33.38.
This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice
Salter. Retired Justice Wilbur sat on
this case which was submitted on the briefs over a year ago, on April 19,
2019. Circuit Judge Sabers sat on this
case in lieu of Justice Kern.
GRAFF v. CHILDREN’S CARE HOSP. AND SCHOOL, 2020 S.D. 26: This is a tort action on behalf of a 16 year
old boy suffering “a variety of conditions
related to his physical, mental, and intellectual abilities.” This
claim is against “Children’s Care Hospital
and School (CCHS), alleging it was negligent and inflicted emotional distress
by using physical restraints on [the 16 year old boy] when he received services
at CCHS.” Following
a 3 week trial, jury found for Defendant.
Appellant’s primary assertion on appeal was that the trial court erred
in refusing to allow certain Department of Health surveys into evidence –
surveys “performed to assess CCHS’s compliance
with Medicaid and Medicare requirements.” The SD Supreme Court affirmed
holding that “the lack of a trial
transcript precludes meaningful appellate review.” This
decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Salter. [Of interest is footnote 2 of the opinion
which indicates that Defendant “no longer
uses prone restraints,” which was one of the
assertions made in this case.]
These decisions may be accessed at
