The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
1) Dispute over video billboards in Rapid City;
2) Petitioners for supervision of judicial trust may challenge
validity of trust
Summaries follows:
LAMAR ADVERTISING OF SOUTH DAKOTA, L.L.C. v. CITY OF RAPID
CITY, 2020 S.D. 30: This is a dispute
between two advertising agencies regarding certain video billboards in Rapid
City. This dispute is summarized in ¶1
of the opinion as follows:
In this
appeal, Lamar Advertising contends that the circuit court erred in failing to
declare that the City of Rapid City unlawfully bargained away its police power
when it entered into a settlement agreement with Epic Outdoor Advertising under
which the City agreed to amend certain sign code ordinances and grant Epic two
sign permits. By notice of review, Epic asserts the circuit court erred in
denying Epic’s request that the court declare invalid a similar settlement
agreement previously executed between Lamar and the City. We affirm.
This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice
DeVaney. Circuit Judge Maher sat on this
case, in lieu of Justice Kern.
MATTER OF CARVER REVOCABLE TRUST, 2020 S.D. 31: In this proceeding which was instituted for
the purpose of securing “judicial supervision
of the trust under SDCL 21-22-9,” the
circuit court refused to adjudicate the validity of the original trust as
requested by Petitioners – interpreting, “SDCL
55-4-57(a)(1) in conjunction with SDCL 21-24-7 to mean that a petition for
judicial supervision is not sufficient to commence a challenge to the validity
of a trust” and that Petitioners had been “required to commence their trust challenge by service of
summons within one year after [decedent’s] death.” The SD
Supreme Court reversed, holding in ¶ 36:
Because a
circuit court may consider the validity of a trust in a petition for judicial
supervision under SDCL chapter 21-22, the McFarlands’ petition, filed pursuant
to SDCL 21-22-9, which included a request that the circuit court determine the
validity of the various trust amendments, properly commenced a judicial
proceeding as contemplated by SDCL 55-4-57(a). The McFarlands’ trust challenge
was timely because they filed their petition within the one-year timeframe
after Russell’s death. Therefore, the circuit court erred when it dismissed the
portion of the McFarlands’ petition requesting that the circuit court determine
the validity of the trust or its amendments.
This decision is unanimous with opinion authored by Justice
DeVaney.
These decisions may be accessed at
