The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
1) Wife prevails in contempt proceeding against ex-Husband;
2) State of South Dakota denied recovery of clean-up funds related
to underground oil tanks
Summaries
follows:
FARMER v. FARMER, 2020 S.D. 46: Wife brought this contempt proceeding against
ex-Husband for the purpose of enforcing property settlement agreement incorporated
into 2014 divorce decree. Trial court
found ex-Husband in contempt and that he owed Wife $331,184.81. Trial court further held, “To satisfy this debt and purge himself of contempt, [ex-Husband
is] ordered [to] convey to [wife] his membership interests in certain entities
and his ownership interest in certain properties." Trial
court also awarded Wife attorney fees. The
SD Supreme Court affirmed, awarding Wife additional appellate attorney fees of $29,172.62,
the full amount of Wife’s request. This
decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. The contempt proceeding was initiated in the
trial court in 2016, but not finally resolved until August, 2018, with numerous
hearings held in the interim.
S.D. PETROLEUM RELEASE COMPENSATION FUND v. BP, 2020 S.D. 47:
The State of South Dakota sought recovery of clean-up funds related to “environmental contamination from underground petroleum storage
tanks” at 27 locations in South Dakota. The trial court denied recovery to the State and
the SD Supreme Court affirmed. The first
2 paragraphs of the opinion explain this litigation and result as follows:
[¶1.] The
State of South Dakota and the South Dakota Petroleum Release Compensation Fund
(Fund) sought to recover payments made to the predecessor and subsidiary
companies of BP plc (hereafter jointly referred to as “BP”) for the costs of
cleaning up environmental contamination from underground petroleum storage
tanks (UST) at 27 BP sites in South Dakota.1 The Fund also sought to recover
payments made to third parties for cleanup costs at 19 other UST sites in South
Dakota. The Fund referred to these latter claims as “indirect claims,” alleging
that BP was responsible for cleanup costs because it had previously owned or
operated the USTs at the 19 sites.
[¶2.] The
circuit court initially granted BP’s motion for summary judgment on all but one
of the 19 indirect claims, determining the claims were time-barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. Later, the circuit court granted BP’s motion
for summary judgment on the Fund’s remaining claims against BP. The Fund
appeals, arguing that the circuit court erred in dismissing its claims. The
Fund also argues the circuit court abused its discretion in denying its motion
for discovery sanctions. We affirm.
This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by
Justice Jensen. Circuit Judge Sabers sat
on this case, in lieu of Justice DeVaney who was the trial judge.
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
