The SD
Supreme Court handed down four decisions this morning, holding, inter alia:
1)
Split
decision (3/2) adverse to surviving Wife;
2)
Landowners
secure reversal in pipeline dispute;
3)
UIM coverage
found for employee;
4)
Full faith
and Credit does not warrant dismissal of simultaneous divorce action filed in
state court;
Summaries
follows:
ESTATE OF
SIMON, 2024 S.D. 47: Omitted spouse (Wife) filed this action seeking, “intestate share of [Husband’s] estate pursuant to SDCL
29A-2-301.” The trial court denied relief, holding that
Wife’s claim was barred by the “exception
found in SDCL 29A-2-301(a)(3) [concluding] that [Husband] provided for [Wife]
outside of the will with the intent that those transfers would be in lieu of
any testamentary provision.” In a
split decision the SD Supreme Court affirmed. The majority opinion,
agreeing with the trial court, is authored by Chief Justice Jensen.
Justice
Kern filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Myren concurs. The
dissenting opinion states,
[¶59.] Because the
record lacks any statements by [Husband] regarding the intent of his transfers
to [Wife] and because his intent cannot be reasonably inferred from the amount
of the transfers or other evidence, the Estate, as the proponent of the will,
has failed to establish that it falls within the exception set forth in SDCL
29A-2-301(a)(3), and the circuit court erred as a matter of law in determining
otherwise.
This
case was orally argued on March 23, 2023 and decided some 17 months later,
after “reassignment” to CJ Jensen.
STROM
TRUST, et al. v. SCS CARBON TRANSPORT, LLC, 2024 S.D. 48: This case involves a
consolidated appeal by aggrieved landowners, in regard to pipeline
dispue. The landowners are successful in securing a reversal. Details of
the dispute, the holding in the lower courts and the ruling on appeal are set
forth in the first 5 paragraphs of the decision, as follows:
[¶1.] SCS Carbon
Transport, LLC (SCS) is planning to develop a pipeline network to transport
carbon dioxide (CO2) through South Dakota. Several landowners (Landowners)
along the proposed route refused to allow SCS pre[1]condemnation survey access,
which SCS claims is authorized by SDCL 21-35-31. Landowners sued in both the
Third and Fifth Judicial Circuits, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to
prevent the surveys. These proceedings resulted in a consolidated appeal from
six lawsuits filed by Landowners and one by SCS. Two cases were filed in the
Third Circuit: CIV 22-64 (Strom) and CIV 22-129 (Deeg). Five cases were filed
in the Fifth Circuit namely: CIV 22-14 (Helfenstein), CIV 22-47 (Braun), CIV
22-253 (Bossly), CIV 22-20 (Schumacher), and CIV 22-18 (Jordre).
[¶2.] All cases except
for Jordre—where SCS was the plaintiff and sought declaratory relief permitting
survey access—involved similar claims challenging the constitutionality of SDCL
21-35-31 under the takings and due process clauses of the state and federal
constitutions. Landowners also challenged SCS’s status as a common carrier and,
by extension, its right to exercise eminent domain power. After limited
discovery, SCS moved for and was granted summary judgment on all issues in the
cases filed in both circuits. Landowners appeal.
[¶3.] We reverse the
circuit courts’ grants of summary judgment on the common carrier issues. SCS’s
ability to conduct pre-condemnation surveys depends on whether it is a common
carrier vested with the power of eminent domain. However, in this early phase
of the litigation, the record does not demonstrate that SCS is holding itself
out to the general public as transporting a commodity for hire. It is thus
premature to conclude that SCS is a common carrier, especially where the record
before us suggests that CO2 is being shipped and sequestered underground with
no apparent productive use. In addition, the circuit courts abused their
discretion in denying Landowners’ request for further discovery. The record
demonstrates that SCS resisted Landowners’ efforts to obtain depositions and
documents that are of fundamental importance to the issues in this case. Within
the scope of SDCL 15-6-26, Landowners are entitled to conduct depositions and
have access to documents relevant to SCS’s pricing terms and business model
under conditions prescribed by the courts to preserve the confidentiality of
the information.
[¶4.] On remand, in the
event SCS is determined to be a common carrier, we also analyze the scope and
constitutionality of SDCL 21-35-31. Mindful of our mandate to interpret the
statute according to its plain meaning, and to do so in a fashion that
preserves its constitutionality where possible, we conclude that the circuit
courts partially erred in their analyses of the types of surveys authorized by
SDCL 21-35-31. We hold that—absent landowner consent—the statute, to be
interpreted as constitutionally valid, authorizes only minimally invasive
superficial inspections that, at most, cause minor soil disturbances. In
addition, we interpret SDCL 21-35-31 as incorporating our state constitutional
guarantee of a jury determination of damages that are caused by
pre-condemnation surveys. Based on this interpretation, we conclude that the
limited pre-condemnation surveys authorized by SDCL 21-35-31, as strictly
interpreted herein, do not violate the federal or state constitutions.
[¶5.] We reverse and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
This
decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Kern.
Retired Circuit Judge Wipf Pfeifle sat on this case, in lieu of Justice
DeVaney.
ACUITY v.
TERRA-TEK, LLC & WABA, 2024 S.D. 49: UIM insurer denied coverage for claim,
asserting that employees were not occupying a “covered
auto” at the time of the accident. The
trial court found coverage existed, looking at the Declarations Page and
Endorsement which identified employee as an additional insured, without regard
to whether employee was in a “covered
auto” at the time of the
accident. This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by
Justice DeVaney.
TORGERSON
v. TORGERSON, 2024 S.D. 50: Wife, an enrolled member of the Sisseton Wahpeton
Oyate Tribe, filed for divorce against Husband in tribal court.
Thereafter, Husband filed suit for divorce in state court. State trial
court found that both tribal court and state court had jurisdiction, but that
the tribal court was first in time and that Full Faith and Credit
required dismissal of the state court action. The SD Supreme Court reversed and
remanded, applying SD’s “comity” statute, SDCL 1-1-25. The Court’s
opinion is authored by Justice Kern. Justices Salter and Myren filed
separate opinions, dissenting in part. Justice DeVaney concurs in the
views expressed by Justice Salter.
These
decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
