Former AG's law license suspended 6 months; Adverse Possession determines title to mobile home lot

 The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning: 

1)    Former AG’s law license suspended for 6 months;

 

2)   Title to Mobile Home Lot acquired by Adverse Possession.

 

Summaries follows:

 

DISCIPLINE OF RAVNSBORG, 2024 S.D. 58: Disciplinary proceeding against the former Attorney General resulted in the Referee’s recommendation of public censure, “finding that Ravnsborg improperly used his title as attorney general to receive favorable treatment.”  The SD Supreme Court ordered additional briefing and conducted de novo review, “[b]ecause the Referee was in no better position than this Court is to weigh and consider documentary evidence.” Following oral argument, the Court handed down this ruling which orders a 6 month suspension of the former AG’s law license.  The concluding paragraph of the opinion provides:

[¶53.] After reviewing the facts and weighing the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, the Court hereby suspends Ravnsborg’s license to practice law in South Dakota for a period of six months. While Ravnsborg is unlikely to continue practicing law in South Dakota, we conclude suspension is necessary to preserve theintegrity of the profession and deter like conduct by other attorneys. The six-month suspension shall commence on the date of entry of the order of suspension. Pursuant to SDCL 16-19-70.4, Ravnsborg shall also be responsible for reimbursing the State Bar of South Dakota for all costs and expenses related to these proceedings. These costs and expenses shall be reimbursed prior to his reinstatement to practice law in South Dakota.

This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.

HOFFMAN v. HOLLOW HORN, 2024 S.D. 59: This case involves litigation over title to a mobile home lot in Eagle Butte.  Administrator of the Estate of “Mother Theresa Hoffmann” filed this action claiming legal title.  The trial court ruled in favor of subsequent possessors based upon two theories adverse possession.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, based upon on just one of the theories – the basis that title was acquired through adverse possession in the name of the grantor of a subsequent quit claim deed. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion by Chief Justice Jensen. 

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

 

SD Hands down 2 new decisions

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

 

1)    3^rd trial does not offend double jeopardy;

 

2)   Conversion of Default hearing to “merits” permitted; problematic issue with filing of appellate brief.

 

Summaries follows:

 

STATE v. ROSE, 2024 S.D. 56:  Defendant was prosecuted for assault in Magistrate Court.  After two mistrials, Defendant was convicted by Jury.  Defendant asserted (and now asserts again) that the 3^rd jury trial was barred by double jeopardy.  Defendant also asserted that mistrial # 2, granted at the request of the State’s Attorney, was wrongly granted.   The Circuit Court rejected the Defendant’s double jeopardy claim.  And, so does the SD Supreme Court.  This is a unanimous decision (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.  

Of interest is the SD Supreme Court’s recognition that the Circuit Court in this matter was acting an intermediate appellate court and not entitled to deference:

[¶22.] Although this is an appeal from a circuit court’s order, the circuit court was functioning here as an intermediate court of appeals. See State v. Delfs, 396 N.W.2d 749, 752 (S.D. 1986). As in Delfs, the circuit court did not hear the evidence or testimony. See id. Therefore, “the circuit court decision is not entitled to any deference.” Id.

 

GOFF v. GOFF, 2024 S.D. 57: A default hearing on a Divorce petition evolved into a trial on the merits when Defendant (H) appeared telephonically and indicated that he wished to proceed.  Both parties were placed under oath and testified.  The trial court granted W a divorce on the ground of adultery and made determinations of child custody, child support, division of property and also made a partial award of attorney fees in favor of W.  The SD Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err by proceeding to a trial on the merits.  As to the merits, the SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded as to the following: 1) determination of child support arrearage; 2) visitation restriction on H mandating that visitation be exercised only in SD (restriction unsupported by proper findings); 3) attorney fee award to W.  This is a unanimous decision (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Kern. 

There is an interesting issue here with the attempted filing of an appellate brief by W.  W missed the deadline to file an Appellee brief and thereafter filed a motion for extension of time which was granted.  W submitted her Brief, but it was filed with the Court and served on opposing counsel 1 day late.  The SD Supreme Court Clerk rejected it.  Thereafter W filed a Motion for Waiver of this Default and the Waiver was granted with directions that W file the Brief by a subsequent date.  W did not file (or refile) the Appellee Brief.  As a result the Court admonishingly stated that W had not presented any arguments on appeal:

[¶11.] The Court granted this motion, ordering that “appellant shall file the appellee’s brief on or before April 8, 2024.” No such brief was filed and, as a result, this Court has been presented with no arguments from [W].

Nonetheless, the Court relented restating the established rule in SD that, “failure of the appellee to file a brief does not automatically translate to victory for the appellant.”

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

 

 

4 new SD Supreme Court decisions this morning

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down four decisions this morning, holding, inter alia: 

1)    Rape convictions affirmed;

 

2)   insurance coverage for fire loss excluded;

 

3)  “standby counsel” did not violate Defendant’s right to proceed pro se;

 

4)   order denying confirmation of specific devise not appealable;

 

Summaries follows:

 

STATE v. O’BRIEN, 2024 S.D. 52:  Defendant was convicted, by jury, of multiple charges of “rape, sexual contact with a child under the age of sixteen, and sexual exploitation of a minor.”  The trial court imposed multiple prison sentences.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Defendant’s allegations of: a) insufficiency of evidence; b)duplicity of charges: and (c)  "plain error" in regard to the jury instructions.  This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.  (NOTE:  This case was orally argued less than 3 months ago.)

 

ACUITY INSURANCE v. A MAXON and WEATHERSPOON, 2024 S.D. 53: Buyers and Sellers of business sought coverage under fire insurance policy, following fire to premises.  The transaction was arranged as a “contract for deed,” buyers to receive title through their LLC.  Jury found that one of the Buyers, a “principal” of the LLC had “had intentionally started the fire.”  As a result the trial court entered “judgment as a matter of law” in favor of insurer (and against both Buyers and Sellers), holding that Buyer’s conduct also excluded coverage for Sellers. The SD Supreme Court affirmed.  The decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

STATE v. HEER, 2024 S.D. 54: Facing multiple drug charges, Defendant filed a “motion to represent himself.” The Trial Court responded by granting the motion, “but [also ] ordering his former court-appointed attorney to serve as standby counsel.”  Jury found Defendant guilty on all counts.  Defendant presents this appeal, "[w]ith the assistance of different appointed counsel," Defendant asserts “improper vouching” by the Prosecutor in closing argument and also that his “Sixth Amendment right to self-representation was violated by the appointment of standby counsel and by standby counsel’s presence at trial.” The SD Supreme Court rejected Defendant’s arguments and affirmed.  This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

ESTATE OF AGER, 2024 S.D. 55: Personal Representative (PR), daughter of deceased from earlier marriage, began unsupervised administration of Decedent’s estate.  Decedent’s Widow filed petition for supervised administration.  PR then filed “motion for confirmation of a specific devise.” The Trial Court granted Widow’s petition for supervised administration and thereafter denied PR’s “motion for confirmation of a specific devise.”  Trial Court also denied Widow’s motion to have PR removed as PR.  PR filed Notice of Appeal.  Widow filed Notice of Appeal.  Both Notices of Appeal are dismissed.  With respect to PR’s effort to appeal, the last paragraph of the Court’s opinion is instructive:

[¶15.] Here, the undisputed procedural sequence of events demonstrates that the order for supervised administration was signed before the circuit court’s order denying [PR’s] motion for confirmation of a specific devise. See SDCL 15-6-58 (“A judgment or order becomes complete and effective when reduced to writing, signed by the court or judge, attested by the clerk and filed in the clerk’s office.”). Under the circumstances, the action had become a supervised administration and a single in rem proceeding not subject to Geier’s [In re Estate of Geier, 2012 S.D. 2, ¶ 15, 809 N.W.2d 355, 359] individual-proceeding rule of finality. We therefore dismiss [PR’s] appeal and, likewise, [Widow’s] notice of review.

Further explanation for the dismissal for the Widow’s attempted appeal is set forth in note 2, at the end of the Opinion.  This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter.  

These decisions may be accessed at

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