The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:
1) Criminal sentence and order of restitution upheld;
2) Romantic relationship ends in litigation;
3) Ownership by “adverse possession” claim reversed in 3-2
decision.
Summaries follows:
STATE v. AT THE STRAIGHT, 2023 S.D. 1: Defendant was found
guilty by jury of attempted 1st degree murder, 4 counts of
aggravated assault, commission of a felony with a firearm, and of being a
habitual offender. The trial court
sentenced Defendant to 25 years, 15 years, and another 25 years, all to be
served consecutively. (No sentences were
imposed on 3 charges.) The trial court also
ordered Defendant to pay restitution of $403,058.48. Defendant’s appeal is predicated solely
(apparently) upon the assertion that the trial court erred in not granting his
motions for acquittal. The SD Supreme
Court affirmed in a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Justice
Myren.
ESTATE OF THACKER v. TIMM, 2023 S.D. 2: There is a seemingly-endless set of facts in
this dispute which runs some 8 pages, (¶¶2 - ¶19 of the opinion). The plaintiff is the estate of the Man who
entered into a long-term romantic relationship with the Woman, beginning in the
1980s. No children were born of this
relationship, but each had children from a prior marriage. This action was commenced against the Woman,
by the Man’s daughters (serving as co-guardians and co-conservators of his
estate) in 2019, with the Estate being substituted as party plaintiff after his
death in 2020. The trial court denied
the Estate’s claims. The SD Supreme
Court affirmed in a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Justice
Myren.
FUOSS v. DAHLKE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 2023 S.D. 3: This
is a dispute between neighboring landowner.
The trial court ruled in favor of Plaintiff in his lawsuit claiming
ownership of land by adverse possession, as well as ownership of an
accompanying easement. The SD Supreme
Court reversed and remanded, in 3-2 ruling, in favor of Defendants. The Court’s
decision rejects Plaintiff’s claim and remand for resolution of one of the
Defendants’ counterclaim. The Majority
opinion, authored by Justice Salter concludes as follows:
[¶61.] We
conclude that the circuit court erred when it determined that Fuoss acquired
title to the Disputed Area by adverse possession. The court incorrectly applied
the doctrine of acquiescence to the facts here and further committed clear
error by rejecting uncontroverted evidence of permissive use by Fuoss’s
predecessors in interest. For much the same reasons, we further hold that the
court erred by granting Fuoss a prescriptive easement allowing access to his
land through the Partnership Property. The access easement is also not
authorized as an easement implied by prior use or necessity. We reverse and
remand for the court’s consideration of Mann’s counterclaim for fencing, which
the court did not previously address given its adverse possession and easement
rulings.
Both Justices Kern and Devaney
dissent in part, with views expressed in an opinion authored by Justice
DeVaney.
NOTE: The majority opinion runs 26 pages (some 61
¶¶s) and the dissent runs 12 pages (some 22 ¶¶s).
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
