Two New Decisions by SD Supreme Court today

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decision this morning, holding inter alia:

 

1. Consensual statements made in Indian Country may be used in criminal prosecution in state court;

 

2. Property tax contest raised by taxpayer partially successful, with taxpayer being awarded appellate attorney fees of $3,000 by the SD Supreme Court

 

Summaries follows:

 

STATE v. CUMMINGS, 2021 S.D. 4:  In this criminal case, the trial court suppressed statements made by Defendant to an investigating officer at Defendant’s home on Indian Trust land.  The statements related to a burglary which occurred outside of Indian Country, a burglary as to which Defendant was subsequently charged in Bennett County state court.    The trial court ruled that the investigating officer lacked authority to investigate crimes in Indian Country.  The SD Supreme Court granted the State’s request for an immediate appeal and reversed, holding that the statements made were in the context of a consensual conversation and, as such, not in violation of the 4^th Amendment.   This decision is unanimous with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.  Circuit Judge Myren (now Justice Myren) sat on this case in lieu of Justice DeVaney.

 

PIRMANTGEN v. ROBERTS COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA, 2021 S.D. 5:  The facts and issues are initially summarized in ¶1 of the Court’s opinion as follows:

 

[¶1.] After the Roberts County Director of Equalization applied an across the-board 10% increase to the value of James Pirmantgen’s properties for the 2018 tax year, Pirmantgen challenged the tax assessment on 16 properties. The Office of Hearing Examiners held a trial de novo and modified the assessments on four properties but affirmed the County’s remaining assessments. Pirmantgen appealed the hearing examiner’s decision to the circuit court, and after considering the record evidence and arguments of counsel, the court reversed and modified the hearing examiner’s decision. The court set aside the County’s across-the-board 10% increase, modified the assessed values for some properties, and ordered the County to assess the remaining properties at the values existing prior to the 10% increase for the tax year in question. The court also ordered that the County reimburse Pirmantgen for any excess taxes collected. The County appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part.  

 

With respect to 3 of the parcels, the SD Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s ruling that the hearing examiner’s valuations of these three parcels were clearly erroneous and also affirmed the circuit court’s modification of the hearing examiner’s decision to reflect appropriate valuations.

 

With respect to the remaining 10 parcels, the SD Supreme Court found that the trial court, “erred in reversing the hearing examiner’s decision as to these ten properties and in directing the County to reduce the assessments on these properties to the assessed values existing prior to the 10% increase.”

 

In regard to the ability of the trial court to order a refund of taxes paid to the County, the SD Supreme Court stated, “Because the circuit court did not have the authority to order the refund of taxes, it erred in directing the County to reimburse Pirmantgen any taxes paid in excess of what should have been paid.”  Footnote 5 of the opinion explains:

 

The Court has previously recognized that “[t]here are two exclusive methods by which an aggrieved taxpayer may seek recovery for alleged illegal taxes paid. They are the Refund and Abatement Statute, SDCL 10-18-1, and the Protest and Suit Statute, SDCL 10-27-2.” Lick v. Dahl, 285 N.W.2d 594, 599 (S.D. 1979); see also Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Kinsman, 2009 S.D. 53, ¶ 18, 768 N.W.2d 540, 545.

 

The SD Supreme Court also awarded the taxpayer $3,000 in appellate attorney fees, breaking new ground in so far as this is the first opportunity the Court has had to resolve the question “whether an appellee may recover a portion of the attorney fees incurred when the appellee only partially prevails in the appeal of a property assessment.”  In support of the appellate attorney fee award, the Court stated, “Pirmantgen prevailed on a major issue—whether the Director of Equalization’s assessment methodology was contrary to the statutory mandates.”

 

This decision is unanimous by the Court, with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.  Circuit Judge Hanson sat on this case, in lieu of former C.J. Gilbertson.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .