Three Decisions today by the SD Supreme Court

 

The SD Supreme Court handed three decisions this morning:

 

1. Pre-marital property settlement upheld; 

 

2. Quiet Title Adjudication Reversed

 

3. Denial of Habeas Relief to Lifer upheld

 

Summaries follows:

 

LIEBEL v. LIEBEL, 2024 S.D. 34: Having both been married twice before, H & W married in 2010, with divorce proceedings instituted in 2022.  In dividing property, the trial court upheld the parties “pre-marital agreement” signed 13 days before their marriage ceremony.  W appeals, but the SD Supreme Court affirmed.  This opinion discusses and applies the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (UPAA), as adopted by SD in 1989.  The Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.

 

MOHNEN v. ESTATE OF MOHNEN, 2024 S.D. 35: This is a quiet title action regarding land in Aurora County. The trial court’s ruling is reversed and the case remanded by the SD Supreme Court.  The facts and issues are summarized in ¶1 and the result is set forth in ¶35, the concluding paragraph of the Court’s Opinion, as follows:

 

 

[¶1.] Edward Mohnen commenced this action to quiet title to five parcels of land in Aurora County that have remained, at least in part, titled in his father’s name after he died intestate in 1969. The complaint named multiple defendants, including the estate of Edward’s late brother John Mohnen and the John J. Mohnen Trust (“John’s Trust” and collectively “John’s Estate”). In a counterclaim, John’s Estate alleged it held a complete fee interest in all the disputed parcels through adverse possession and also asserted the affirmative defense of laches. Following a court trial, the circuit court rejected both the laches defense and adverse possession theory and then determined ownership for the five tracts at issue, applying intestacy laws to evidence concerning the current state of record title. We reverse.

 

[¶35.] The circuit court’s determination that John’s Estate cannot prevail on its adverse possession claim because John did not oust Edward was erroneous. We also conclude that the court’s findings establish each of the elements of adverse possession under SDCL 15-3-15. This effectively renders moot the laches question, the alternate adverse possession theory under SDCL 15-3-12 to -13, and the court’s determination of ownership shares for the five parcels. We reverse the circuit court’s decision denying John’s Estate’s adverse possession claim under SDCL 15-3-15, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 

This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with the Court’s opinion being authored by Justice Salter.

 

EVANS v. SULLIVAN, 2024 S.D. 36: Inmate serving a life sentence sought Habeas Corpus relief.  Trial court dismissed 3 of his 9 claims on the basis of res judicata because they had been resolved in his direct appeal.  The Trial Court, after entertaining an evidentiary hearing, dismissed the remaining claims.  “[M]ost of [inmate’s claims] alleged ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his underlying criminal trial, [but] He also alleged violations of his rights to due process and to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.].”  The Trial Court issued a certificate of probable cause and the SD Supreme Court entertained this appeal, after previously dismissing an earlier attempted appeal in regard to just the res judicata dismissals.  Inmate, once again, loses.  This is a unanimous (5-0) decision, with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

 

 

Stepparent Adoption Denied; Felonious Property Damage Conviction Upheld

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

 

1. Stepparent adoption denied;

 

2. Felonious property damage conviction upheld.

 

Summaries follows:

 

ADOPTION OF I.V.E., C.A.E., AND L.A.E., 2024 S.D. 32: This is an attempted stepparent adoption in which the argument is made that the father’s consent may be considered waived by the Court under SDCL 25-6-4, in particular under SDCL 25-6-4 (3) and (4).  (neglect and failure to support).  The trial court denied the adoption and the SD Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence produced by Mother and Step Father failed to establish the grounds of SDCL 25-6-4 (3) and (4) by “clear and convincing evidence.” The Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.

 

STATE v. HAHN, 2024 S.D. 33: In what appears to be a random act of vandalism by a “highly intoxicated” Defendant, the jury convicted the Defendant “of intentional damage to property with the damage amount totaling more than $1,000 but less than $2,500,” with the damaged property being the front door of a residence.  The sole issue on appeal was the assertion that the state failed to meet the “correct legal standard for determining damages” in regard to the value of the front door. The SD Supreme Court affirmed.  The Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

 

 

Order to repay COVID benefits reversed (again)

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding, inter alia:

 

1. Order to repay COVID benefits reversed (again)

 

 

Summary follows:

 

PALMER v. DEP’T OF LABOR & REGULATION, 2024 S.D. 31: This is another case where the SD DOL sought repayment of alleged overpayments made in connection with “Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA)”  The ALJ ordered the recipient to repay $8,664 plus a penalty assessment for making a fraudulent misrepresentation.  The ALJ’s decision was affirmed by the Circuit Court.  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded.  The 1^st and last paragraphs of the opinion are set forth here:

 

[¶1.] An administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Melissa Palmer willfully misrepresented facts to receive pandemic unemployment assistance benefits and ordered that she repay the benefits and be assessed a mandatory penalty under SDCL 61-6-39. The circuit court affirmed the ALJ’s decision, and on appeal to this Court, Palmer asserts that the ALJ erred in finding that she willfully misrepresented facts to obtain those benefits and in concluding that she was therefore subject to a penalty. We reverse and remand.

 

and

 

[¶36.] Although the ALJ issued a specific ruling that Palmer was at fault in receiving the overpayment of PUA benefits, we cannot ascertain whether this ruling was based solely on the ALJ’s determination that Palmer’s inaccurate reporting was done willfully. Having concluded that the ALJ erred in its determination that Palmer willfully misrepresented facts to obtain PUA benefits, we remand for the ALJ to either clarify or reconsider the “at fault” determination and whether Palmer is eligible for a waiver under the governing rules. See SDCL 61-6-42 (providing that the Department may waive the right of recovery of benefits under certain conditions, including that the claimant was not at fault, according to rules promulgated pursuant to chapter 1-26); ARSD 47:06:04:22 (setting forth the conditions that must exist before the department may waive overpayment).

 

The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.   NOTE:  This another case in which newly-appointed federal judge Eric Schulte served as pro bono counsel for the individual sued for return of COVID payments. 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .