The
SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
- Extrinsic oral evidence by Attorney in Fact permitted;
- Termination of parental rights to Indian Child
reversed.
Summaries
follows:
SMITH
ANGUS RANCH v. HURST, 2021 S.D. 40: This
dispute and the result at the trial level are described in the opening
paragraph of the Court’s opinion:
[¶1.] Smith Angus Ranch Inc.
(SAR), a South Dakota corporation, brought an action alleging Travis Hurst
(Travis) wrongfully acquired SAR assets and made improper purchases using SAR
funds while serving as a director and officer of SAR. The complaint alleged
breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing, among other claims. The court
granted SAR’s motion for partial summary judgment on the claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and self-dealing, after prohibiting Travis from presenting
extrinsic oral evidence to show he was authorized to carry out the contested
transactions.
Intermediate
appeal to the SD Supreme Court was sought, as explained in ¶12:
[¶12.] Travis petitioned for intermediate appeal,
which this Court granted. He claims the circuit court erred by applying the
rule in Stoebner to exclude extrinsic oral evidence that the
transactions were authorized or approved and thereby erred in granting SAR’s
motion for partial summary judgment.
The
SD Supreme Court agreed with appellant, reversing and remanding, stating in
¶22:
[¶22.] Our cases, including
our most recent decision in Stoebner, have only applied the rule from Bienash
to acts of self-dealing by an attorney-in-fact acting under a written POA. We
have not extended this rule to other fiduciaries, and SAR does not present
authority from any jurisdiction that has extended the rule to other fiduciary
relationships. Limiting the rule to acts of self-dealing by POAs is consistent
with the recognition of this Court, and other courts, that the rule arises from
the acute vulnerability of POAs to self-dealing. See Bienash, 2006 S.D.
78, ¶ 21, 721 N.W.2d at 436. See also Estate of Casey v. Comm’r of Internal
Revenue, 948 F.2d 895, 898 (4th Cir. 1991) (stating the bright-line rule
concerning POAs had been adopted “in order to avoid fraud and abuse”).
This
decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.
IN
RE INTEREST OF C.H., 2021 S.D. 41:
Mother’s parental rights to Indian Child were terminated by the trial
court. The SD Supreme Court reversed and
remanded because the evidence was insufficient to establish that “active
efforts were made to reunify Mother and [child]” as required by the Indian
Child Welfare Act (ICWA), as well as by SD law.
This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice
DeVaney.
These
decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
