The
SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
- Appeal (from grant of summary judgment) dismissed;
- Attorney fees in regard to trust supervision litigation
addressed.
Summaries
follows:
GOENS
v. FDT, LLC, 2022 S.D. 71: Plaintiffs sued two Defendants. Defendant #1 filed Answer. Defendant # 2 field an Answer and a
Counterclaim. Trial court granted Summary Judgment for Defendant # 1. Plaintiff appealed. The SD Supreme Court dismissed the appeal,
noting that there was no certification under SDCL 15-6-54(b) which is required
for the rendering of an appealable final judgment, stating:
[¶5.] … [T]his interlocutory
judgment “is not a final judgment under SDCL 15-6-54(b) and is not appealable.”
Because active claims remained in this action at the time of appeal and no Rule
54(b) certification was made, we dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction
under SDCL 15-26A-3.
The
Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Myren.
MATTER
OF PETERSEN TRUSTS, 2022 S.D. 72: This litigation involves two trusts. Daughter
Sally filed suit seeking reformation of one of the trusts. Daughter Mindy opposed Sally’s suit and also
filed suit seeking clarification and other relief. The trial court ruled
against Mindy, but ruled in favor of Sally and granted reformation. Also, the trial court denied Sally and her
husband’s request for attorney fees and expenses, “concluding
the trust did not receive an economic benefit from the litigation, which, the
court determined, was required to justify reimbursement from the trust.”
Sally
appeals. The sole issue on the appeal
relates to the trial court’s ruling on attorney fee and expenses. Sally (& her husband) also request an
award appellate attorney fees.
The
SD Supreme Court denied appellate attorney fees but otherwise reversed and
remanded the issue of attorney fees as handled by the trial court. The Court took provided a more liberal
interpretation of the attorney fee statute than did the trial court, stating:
[¶42.] Attorney fees are authorized
in trust supervision proceedings under SDCL 15-17-38 where the litigation has
been beneficial to the trust estate. Though the benefit will often be expressed
in terms of an economic benefit, the concept is broader than that and can
include instances, such as this one, where a beneficiary’s litigation was
necessary to uphold the settlor’s universally acknowledged intent. In those
cases where the benefit asserted by an attorney fees applicant is economic, the
applicant must show that the litigation produced a benefit beyond that which
the trust estate would have otherwise realized.
[¶43.] Here, then, attorney fees
are authorized for Sally’s efforts to vindicate her father’s intent. Short of
litigation, there was no other means for her to do so. We reverse the circuit
court’s denial of attorney fees for Sally’s litigation efforts to obtain the
homestead. However, the circuit court correctly determined that attorney fees
were not authorized for Mike and Sally’s efforts to resist Mindy’s attempt to
reform the Land Trust and retire the mortgage debt sooner, and we affirm this
determination.
[¶44.] Finally, the plain fact
that fees are authorized does not make a fee award a fait accompli. See Ctr.
of Life Church v. Nelson, 2018 S.D. 42, ¶ 34, 913 .W.2d 105, 114 (holding
the fact that a court was authorized to exercise its discretion and award
attorney fees did not obligate it to do so). Whether to exercise its discretion
to award attorney fees and, if so, in what amount are beyond the issues
presented here, and we remand the case for the court to consider these
questions.
The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0) with
opinion authored by Justice Salter.
These
decisions may be accessed at
