The
SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:
- Appeal from grant of drainage permit not
authorized
HOSTLER
v. DAVISON COUNTY DRAINAGE COMMISSION, 2022 S.D. 24: Landowner in Davison
County sought drainage permit from County Drainage Commission. Neighbor objected. Commission granted permit. Neighbor sought relief in Circuit Court by
pursuing an appeal (under SDCL 46A-10A-35) and by seeking a declaratory
judgment. Circuit Court ruled for
neighbor. Landowner appeals to SD
Supreme Court. The SD Supreme Court
ruled in favor of landowner by vacating the Circuit’s ruling on the basis that
neither an appeal nor a declaratory judgment action is available under the
facts of this case.
As
to the possibility of an appeal, the Court examined the peculiar language of
the statute, pointing out:
[¶12.] We are unable to find,
and [Appellant] has not identified, an instance in which this statute has been
used to appeal the permitting decision of a drainage commission directly
to a circuit court. Importantly, the first two sentences of this statute allow
a landowner to appeal a drainage commission decision arising from a drainage conflict
to either the board and then to the circuit court or to the circuit court
directly. But the statute does not authorize a direct appeal to the circuit
court from a drainage commission decision to grant or deny a drainage permit
application. (emphasis is original by the Court)
As
to the applicability of a DJ action, the Court stated:
[¶17.]
Here, [Appellant] is not challenging the validity of any ordinance, and he is
not seeking a declaration of his rights, status, or other legal relations under
such ordinances. Moreover, while he is arguably affected by the drainage
commission’s decision, he is not seeking to have determined “any question of
construction or validity arising under” a municipal ordinance to “obtain a
declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder.” See SDCL
21-24-3. Rather, he is requesting that the circuit court void the administrative
decision of the drainage commission to grant a permit to a third party
because, in his view, the drainage commission abused its discretion by
failing to properly consider matters required to be considered. Because
[Appellant’s] request for relief is not
of the type that circuit courts have authority to grant via a declaratory
judgment action, the circuit court did not have authority under the Declaratory
Judgment Act to consider [Appellant’s] complaint challenging the drainage
commission’s decision to grant [Landowner’s] permitting request. (emphasis is
original by the Court)
This
decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Kern.
Two
aspects of this decision which I found interesting: 1) this relatively short
ruling (19 ¶s) is handed down more than a year after it was submitted on the
briefs on 4/26/21; and 2) the lawyers listed for the parties are officed out of
state (Arizona and Minnesota).
This
decision may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
