Introductory
Comments: Today the SD Supreme Court released 4 decisions. Three of these
appeals were submitted more than 15 months ago. The issues in each case
are fairly complex, not subject to brief summaries. One of the decisions
represents a significant split among the views of the Justices.
The
SD Supreme Court handed down four decisions this morning:
- Tilting at windmills in Duel County;
- Destruction of property by law enforcement (split
decision);
- Property tax on 501(c)(3)
non-profit corporation;
- Mechanic’s lien in Lawrence County
Summaries
follows:
HOLBORN
v. DEUEL CNTY. BD. OF ADJUSTMENT, 2021 S.D. 6: This
case, involving proposed windmills in Duel County, was orally argued November
4, 2019, over 15 months ago. The dispute and its resolution before
this appeal is described in ¶1 of the opinion:
[¶1.]
Deuel Harvest Wind Energy, LLC and Deuel Harvest Wind Energy South, LLC (Deuel
Harvest) applied for special exception permits (SEP) from the Deuel County
Board of Adjustment (Board) to develop two wind energy systems (WES) in Deuel
County. Several residents of Deuel County and neighboring counties (Appellees)
objected. Following a public hearing, the Board unanimously approved the
permits. Appellees petitioned the circuit court for writ of certiorari
challenging the SEPs, including a claim that several members of the Board had
interests or biases which disqualified them from considering the SEPs. The
circuit court determined that two Board members had disqualifying interests and
invalidated their votes. The court then reversed the decision of the Board
granting the SEPs. Deuel Harvest appeals.
The
result on appeal is set forth in the concluding paragraph of the opinion:
[¶54.] We affirm in part and
reverse in part. We affirm the circuit court’s determination that Kanengieter
and Brandt did not have a disqualifying interest under the Due Process Clause
or applicable South Dakota statutes. We also affirm the circuit court’s
determination that the Board regularly pursued its authority when it defined
the term “business” in the Ordnance. However, the circuit court erred by
invalidating the votes of DeBoer and Dahl. We reverse the court’s decision
overturning the Board’s unanimous vote approving the SEPs and reinstate the
Board’s decision granting the SEPs.
This
decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Chief Justice
Jensen.
HAMEN
v. HAMLIN CNTY., 2021 S.D. 7: This case, involving the destruction of
property by law enforcement personnel, was orally argued September 30, 2019,
over 16 months ago. The dispute, as resolved at both the trial level and
on this appeal is set forth in the opening paragraph of the Court’s opinion:
[¶1.] Gareth and Sharla
Hamen (the Hamens) filed a complaint against Hamlin County (the County), the
Hamlin County Sheriff Chad Schlotterbeck (the Sheriff), and other John Doe
deputies after the Hamens’ mobile home was damaged during the arrest of their
son, Gary Hamen. The Hamens sought compensation for inverse condemnation and
stated a separate claim for deprivation of constitutional rights under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The
circuit court granted summary judgment to the County, dismissing the claims
without prejudice, but denied the other motions. We granted the petition for
discretionary appeal filed by the County and the Sheriff. We reverse the
circuit court’s denial of summary judgment on the inverse condemnation claim.
We affirm in part and reverse in part the circuit court’s denial of summary
judgment on the § 1983 claim.
The
precise ruling on appeal is set forth in the concluding paragraph of the
Court’s opinion:
[¶56.] We reverse the
circuit court’s denial of summary judgment on the inverse condemnation claim
and direct the entry of summary judgment dismissing this claim with prejudice
as to the Sheriff and the County. On the Hamens’ § 1983 claims, we affirm the
circuit court’s denial of summary judgment on the Sheriff’s qualified immunity
for the unlawful entry claim, but we reverse the circuit court’s denial of
summary judgment on the Sheriff’s qualified immunity on the excessive force
claim. We remand the § 1983 claim against the Sheriff for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
The
Court’s opinion is authored by Chief Justice Jensen. It is not unanimous.
The alignment of the views of the Justices on this case is as follows:
[¶57.] KERN, SALTER, and
DEVANEY, Justices, and GILBERTSON, Retired Chief Justice, concur on Issue 1.
[¶58.] KERN, SALTER, and
DEVANEY, Justices, concur on Issue 2a.
[¶59.] GILBERTSON, Retired
Chief Justice, dissents on Issue 2a.
[¶60.] SALTER, Justice,
concurs on Issue 2b.
[¶61.] GILBERTSON, Retired
Chief Justice, concurs in result on Issue 2b.
[¶62.] KERN, and DEVANEY,
Justices, dissent on Issue 2b.
Of
particular interest is the position of Justice Kern (as to which Justice
DeVaney concurs), on the Issue 2b, the excessive force claim, as
expressed in ¶65 and ¶72:
[¶65.] However, I
respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to dismiss the Hamens’
alternative claim for excessive use of force. In my view, we should instead
affirm the circuit court’s order denying the Sheriff’s motion for summary
judgment on this issue. This claim should also proceed to trial, where the jury
can determine through special interrogatories any disputed issues of fact. The
court can then resolve the questions of law.
…
[¶72.] The nature and extent
of the force used here is undisputed and well documented. A police drone
circled above the scene, capturing some of the incident on video, and the
officers involved prepared detailed reports of the episode. The first armored
vehicle approached from the west side pulling the front stairs and deck away
from the trailer. It then tore off the front door of the trailer with a ram,
damaging not only the door but the floor and frame. The second armored vehicle
drilled three portholes on the other side through windows and a sliding glass
door, destroying the septic system in the process. Minutes later, the drone
captured images of Gary walking in the river near the Hamens’ trailer.
Justice
Kern’s position is supported by 4 color photos included as part of her opinion.
WINGS
AS EAGLES MINISTRIES, INC. v. OGLALA LAKOTA COUNTY, 2021 S.D. 8: Wings as
Eagles Ministries is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation under the Internal
Revenue Code. It is exempt from paying sales tax. This is a dispute
over property taxes sought by Oglala Lakota County. The 1st
and last paragraphs of the opinion describe the result of this litigation:
[¶1.]
Wings as Eagles Ministries, Inc. (Wings) applied for property tax exempt status
for the 2014 and 2015 tax years, payable in 2015 and 2016 respectively. Both
applications were denied and became final determinations of the property’s
exempt status for the affected years. Wings subsequently filed a petition with
the Oglala Lakota County Commission (the Commission) seeking an abatement of
its property taxes for 2014 and 2015. The Commission denied the petition, and
Wings appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the Commission’s decision.
Wings now appeals the abatement decision to this Court. We affirm.
…
[¶24.] The circuit court
correctly recognized that Wings was not exempt from property taxes for 2014 and
2015, and therefore, the Commission lacked authority to consider an abatement
under SDCL 10-18-1(3). Moreover, Wings’ estoppel argument is unreviewable
because it was raised for the first time on appeal and is otherwise not
sufficiently developed in the record. We affirm.
The
Court’s opinion is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter.
J.
CLANCY, INC. v. KHAN COMFORT, LLC, 2021 S.D. 9: This case involves the
assertion of a mechanic’s liens, supported by alternative claims of breach of
contract and unjust enrichment, in Lawrence County. The case was
submitted to the SD Supreme Court on the briefs on September 30, 2019, over 16
months ago. The dispute, as resolved at both the trial level and on this
appeal is set forth in the first two paragraphs of the Court’s opinion, as well
as the concluding paragraph:
[¶1.] J. Clancy, Inc. (J.
Clancy), a construction company owned by Jere Clancy, sued Ghazanfar Khan
(Khan) and his company, Khan Comfort, LLC (Khan Comfort), seeking enforcement
of mechanic’s liens it placed against the property. In the alternative, J.
Clancy filed claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Khan Comfort
filed several counterclaims, including claims for overpayment and breach of
contract.
[¶2.] After a bench trial,
the circuit court concluded that J. Clancy’s mechanic’s liens were invalid and
unenforceable because, in part, they were insufficiently itemized. It also held
that a divisible, implied-in-fact contract, rather than an express contract,
governed the relationship between the parties. The court rejected J. Clancy’s
breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against Khan Comfort and
instead found that J. Clancy breached the contract due to nonperformance. It
allowed J. Clancy to recover for the portions of the contract it had actually
performed, but it ultimately determined that the value of J. Clancy’s work was
less than the payments Khan Comfort had already made. Accordingly, the court
ordered J. Clancy to reimburse Khan Comfort for the overpayment. We reverse the
circuit court’s decision in part and remand for new determinations regarding
breach and damages under the terms of the parties’ contract.
…
[¶45.] The trial court erred
in holding that a divisible implied-in-fact contract controlled the parties’
express agreement, and we reverse and vacate the court’s conclusions which hold
otherwise. On remand, the court must undertake a determination of breach and
remedies available to the parties under the express terms of the September
document and any agreed-upon change orders. We also reverse the trial court’s
decision to invalidate both mechanic’s liens filed by J. Clancy. After
determining the questions of breach and damages on remand, the court should
then determine whether J. Clancy is entitled to foreclose on either lien for
any amounts covered thereunder to which the court determines it is entitled.
Because J. Clancy failed to make arguments regarding its conversion claim to
the circuit court, we decline to address the issue on appeal. Finally, because
a valid, express contract controls the parties’ obligations, the parties may
not proceed for equitable relief.
The
Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Kern.
These
decisions may be accessed at
