The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
1) 3-2 decision involving forcible entry and detainer action;
2) Patient’s doctor owes no duty of care to subsequent victim of patient’s seizure-causing accident;
Summaries follows:
VOR, INC. v. ESTATE OF O’FARRELL, 2025 S.D. 2: This a somewhat complicated scenario, the gist of which is described as follows in the opening paragraph of the Court’s Opinion:
[¶1.] VOR, Inc. and the Grand Valley Hutterite Brethren (Colony) brought an eviction action against Paul O’Farrell and Paul’s company, Skyline Cattle Co. (Skyline), under South Dakota’s forcible entry and detainer (FED) statutes. Paul moved to dismiss the suit and argued, among other things, that the eviction should have been brought as a compulsory counterclaim in Paul’s pending undue influence suit against his brother Kelly, the Colony, and the Raymond and Victoria O’Farrell Living Trust (Trust). After the circuit court denied Paul’s motion to dismiss, Paul filed an answer demanding a jury trial and requested a continuance. The circuit court denied the continuance request and proceeded with a court trial. The circuit court granted the eviction, ordered Paul to vacate the property within ten days, and permitted the Colony to keep any of Paul’s personal property abandoned after the ten days expired. Paul now appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The Court’s ruling is a 3-2 decision which holds:
[¶44.] The plain reading of the FED statutes does not permit such a forfeiture. No party presented any authority supporting the circuit court’s action, and our research has not yielded any support. The circuit court’s forfeiture of Paul’s personal property was unsupported by law and, therefore, erroneous.
[¶45.] We affirm the eviction but remand with direction to the circuit court to revise the judgment consistent with this decision.
The Court also awards plaintiffs appellate attorney fees of $ 9,000, stating, “SDCL 21-16-11 authorizes an award of attorneys’ fees for forcible entry and detainer actions[.]” (Plaintiffs had submitted an itemized statement requesting a total award of $18,382.86.)
The majority opinion is authored by Justice Myren.
Justice DeVaney filed an opinion which dissents in part, stating as follows:
[¶79.] The circuit court’s rulings have effectively precluded Paul and Skyline from fully and fairly litigating the issue of who has the right to immediate possession of this Property. I would therefore reverse the above-mentioned rulings by the circuit court, vacate the judgment and order entered in this case, and remand for the entry of an order either dismissing the FED action or, in the alternative, holding it in abeyance until the underlying issues relevant to the right to immediate possession of the Property are resolved in Paul and Skyline’s preexisting lawsuit.
Justice Kern concurs with Justice DeVaney.
TWO EAGLE v. AVEL ECARE, 2025 S.D. 3: Tort plaintiff was injured by driver who suffered a seizure while driving, crashing into plaintiff who was on a riding lawnmower, off the roadway. Plaintiff sued a doctor and related medical care facilities on malpractice and negligence theories relating the doctor’s seeming erroneous grant of permission of driving privileges to driver who had history of seizures. The trial court granted summary judgment relief to Defendants because the doctor “did not owe a duty of care” to tort plaintiff. The SD Supreme Court affirmed. The ruling is unanimous (4 & 1 - 0), with majority opinion authored by Justice Myren. Justice Salter filed a concurring opinion.
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
