The
SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:
- W’s tort claims against H not barred by
Settlement Agreement in Divorce action.
NIEMITALO
v. SEIDEL, 2022 S.D. 13: W sued for
divorce in September, 2017. In November
2017, H "physically attacked [W] at Bison Grain, a company owned and
operated by [H & W], then bound her with zip ties, and drove her to their
marital home where he raped her." H was prosecuted criminally
and sentenced to 75 years in prison. H
& W entered into a settlement entitled, “Property Distribution
and Divorce Agreement.” A decree of divorce was granted in December 2018. W filed a civil suit in September 2019,
setting forth tort claims of “intentional
infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress,
false imprisonment, and civil battery” related to H’s criminal conduct in November
2017. The trial court granted H summary
judgment in the civil tort action on the basis of the parties’ settlement
agreement in the divorce action. The SD
Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding:
[¶30.] The Agreement provides
that [W] obtained a divorce from [H] based on adultery, conduct that does not
have a common factual nucleus to her interspousal tort action against [H] for
intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional
distress, false imprisonment, and civil battery. Further, nothing in the
Agreement reflects that the parties raised, litigated, negotiated, or settled,
in the divorce action, the impact of [H]’s assaultive conduct against [W] that
occurred after she filed for divorce. Finally, although [W] received a lump
sum alimony award, the language in the
Agreement does not reflect that the award was intended to compensate her for
[H]’s tortious conduct.
[¶31.] Because the language of
the Agreement does not preclude [W]’s civil tort suit against [H] and res
judicata does not apply, the circuit court erred in granting [H] summary
judgment.
This
decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. Note: This case orally argued and submitted
to the Court for decision less than 2 months ago, on January 12, 2022.
This
decision may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
