The
SD Supreme Court handed three decisions this morning:
- Pre-marital property settlement upheld;
- Quiet Title Adjudication Reversed
- 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 .
