The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning,
holding, inter alia:
1) Property Disclosure Statement Requirement Fleshed Out
Summary follows:
REMINGTON v. IVERSON, 2025 S.D. 1: Suit arising out of real
estate transaction. Buyers sued Sellers and
Real Estate Agent. Trial court granted
summary judgment against Buyers holding, inter alia, that “a property disclosure statement was not required because the
sale was a commercial transaction.”
The SD Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded, holding
that a portion of the real estate constituted a residence and was, therefore, subject
to the requirements related to a disclosure statement. The Court stated:
[¶50.] As
their real estate agent, Iverson owed the Remingtons a fiduciary duty. A
property disclosure statement was required for the living quarters which
constitute residential real property. We reverse the circuit court’s
determination to the contrary. As to the non-residential aspects of the
Campground, however, we affirm the court’s determination that a seller’s
disclosure statement was not required. But the existence and extent of this
statutory disclosure obligation was not clear until our decision here, and a
remand is necessary to determine whether Iverson breached his duty to the
Remingtons under the particular facts of this case.
[¶51.] We
affirm the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment on the claims of Iverson’s
direct liability. Iverson cannot be liable for his failure to personally
disclose alleged material defects relating to the property because the
Remingtons have failed to establish that a genuine disputed material fact
exists as to Iverson’s knowledge of the alleged defects.
This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice
Salter.
This decision may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
