The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:
1) Post-divorce squabble addressed;
2) Reversible error to dismiss claims involving members of LLC;
3) Tort claim against employer denied.
Summaries follows:
FARMER v. FARMER and FIRST WESTERN V. LAKOTA LAKE CAMP, LLC
and FARMER, 2022 S.D. 47: This decision addresses consolidated appeals in a
post-divorce squabble for H & W who “acquired a significant amount of land
in the Black Hills and formed multiple legal entities for the development and
sale of the land.” The 1st and 47th paragraphs of
the Court’s decision are set forth here:
[¶1.] In this consolidated appeal, James Farmer challenges orders
entered by two different circuit court judges related to his distributional
interest in Lakota Lake Camp, LLC. James and Lakota Lake also challenge orders
related to the release of funds to James’s wife, Lori Lieberman, previously
held by the clerk of courts following an execution sale of property owned by
Lakota Lake. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further
proceedings.
[¶47.] Nevertheless, we need not decide at this juncture whether the
collection court erred in denying Lakota Lake’s motion for release of funds
because at the time Lakota Lake filed the motion with the collection court, the
divorce court had already ordered that the funds be released to Lori. Having
now concluded that the divorce court erred in ordering the release of the
funds, the proper disposition of the excess sale proceeds remains to be
determined. We therefore vacate the collection court’s order denying Lakota
Lake’s motion and remand for further proceedings before the collection court
related to the proper disposition of the funds at issue.
The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored
by Justice DeVaney.
MACH v. CONNORS, 2022 S.D. 48: The essence of this appeal is,
as described in the opening paragraph, as follows:
[¶1.] A limited
liability company and one of its members, Ronita Mach, brought suit against
Toni Connors, who is also a member of the company. The complaint alleges claims
for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty, breach of the duty
of care, conversion, and unjust enrichment related to conduct allegedly
occurring in connection with the ownership and operation of a pet grooming and
bathing business. The circuit court dismissed the complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiffs appeal. We
affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
This opinion methodically reviews each of the various claims
asserted – alleged breach of duty of loyalty, alleged breach of duty
of care, alleged conversion, and alleged unjust enrichment –
and holds that the trial court erred in dismissing each one. This opinion also
holds that the Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages was sufficiently
pled as part of the conversion claim.
This decision is unanimous (4-0), with opinion authored by
Justice DeVaney. Justice Salter did not participate.
ALTHOFF v. PRO-TEC ROOFING, INC., 2022 S.D. 49: Estate
of employee brought this tort action against the employer, asserting that
causation of the death of the employee was essentially an intentional tort,
actionable outside the scope of Work Comp. The trial court denied Employer’s
motion for summary judgment. Intermediate appeal was granted. The
SD Supreme Court reversed, holding that the “undisputed facts” fail to
establish an intentional tort and that employer is entitled to summary
judgment. The Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by
Justice DeVaney.
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
