The
SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:
- Enforcement of forum selection clause is
non-waivable
NORTHLAND
CAPTIAL v. ROBINSON, 2022 S.D. 32: Plaintiff
sued Defendant (debtor) on a “lease financing agreement” in Spink County, SD, where
Defendant resided. The written agreement
contained a, “forum selection clause requiring any suit filed by either party to
be filed in Stearns County, Minnesota.” Defendant
resisted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment by arguing that this suit was
in violation of the forum selection clause. The trial court granted Summary Judgment for
Plaintiff, rejecting Defendant’s argument by holding that enforcement of a forum
selection clause was tantamount to an objection to venue and that Defendant
waived his right to object to improper venue by failing to follow the
procedure set forth in SDCL 15-5-10. The
SD Supreme Court reversed and directed that the case be dismissed without
prejudice. The Court stated:
[¶29.] We conclude as a matter
of law that the forum selection clause does not permit [Plaintiff] to waive the
agreed choice of forum and requires an action by either party arising from the
Lease to be commenced in Stearns County, Minnesota. Brookfield Trade Ctr.,
Inc. v. Cnty. of Ramsey, 584 N.W.2d 390, 394 (Minn. 1998) (“The
construction and effect of a contract presents a question of law, unless an
ambiguity exists.”). [Defendant] was entitled to enforce the forum selection
clause and require [Plaintiff] to file the action in the forum chosen by the
parties in the Lease. Therefore, we reverse and vacate the circuit court’s
judgment, and direct the circuit court to dismiss the case in Spink County
without prejudice.
This
decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.
This
decision may be accessed at
