Two new decisions by SD Supreme Court today

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

 

1. Statute of limitations longer for independent contractor than for employee;

 

2. Open meetings litigation in regard to School District;

 

 

Summaries follows:

 

PAUL v. BATHURST, 2023 S.D. 56: Plaintiff filed suit for work done for Defendants in connection with a Custer County ranch.  Plaintiff’s suit alleged “breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel.”  The trial court dismissed the action, applying the 4 year statute of limitations found in SDCL 15-2-15(4) which relates to wages paid to an employee.  The SD Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trail court should more fully explore “the contractual relationship between the parties,” recognizing that if the Plaintiff was an “independent contractor,” then the 6 year statute of limitations found in SDCL 15-2-13(1) is applicable.  The Court also recognized that even for an employee, Plaintiff’s claims for reimbursement for expenses would be viable under the 6 year statute.

 

SD CITIZENS FOR LIBERTY, INC. ET AL. v. RAPID CITY AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 51-4, 2023 S.D. 57: This is an action asserting that the Rapid City Area School District was acting in violation of the South Dakota’s open meetings law.  One issue involves the phrase “regularly scheduled official meeting” as used in SDCL 1-25-1.  The Court noted that this language was amended by the 2023 legislature in a manner that directly affects the issue raised.  Nonetheless, the Court restrained itself from addressing an issue that is now “moot,” simultaneously vacating the trial court’s ruling on this issue.  There is another issue involving the reviewability of a determination made by the State’s Attorney as to lack of merit for an open meetings complaint.  Both the trial court and the SD Supreme Court held that such a determination is not reviewable.  For those seeking more information on this decision, I am reproducing the 1^st and last paragraphs of the opinion here:

 

[¶1.] An organized citizens group, along with several individuals, commenced an action against Rapid City Area School District 51-4 (RCAS) seeking a declaration that RCAS was acting contrary to South Dakota’s open meeting law by not allowing public comment at some of its board meetings. After a hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the circuit court ruled in favor of RCAS and denied the group’s summary judgment motion. The court also determined that it could not review a determination made by a state’s attorney concerning an alleged violation of a separate open meeting statute. We vacate the portion of the court’s decision concerning public comment and affirm the court’s decision to not review the state’s attorney’s determination.

 

[¶45.] We hold that the issue regarding the interpretation of “regularly scheduled official meeting” as used in SDCL 1-25-1 is moot and, therefore, nonjusticiable. Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s decision interpreting the statute. We also determine that SDCL chapter 1-25 does not confer jurisdiction upon circuit courts to review the actions of a state’s attorney taken under SDCL 1-25-6. Thus, we affirm the circuit court’s decision to not review the State’s Attorney’s determination.

 

The Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. Retired Justice Wilbur sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Kern.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

Tax Deed upheld by 3/2 vote

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:

 

1. Tax deed upheld by 3/2 vote

 

BIALOTA v. LAKOTA LAKES, LLC, 2023 S.D. 55:  Plaintiff filed this quiet title action for the purpose of eliminating the interest of a Prior Owner as a result of her purchase at a tax sale, offered for sale as a result of failure to pay taxes in Pennington County.  Prior Owner is a Minnesota Limited Liability Company.  Various efforts (by the County and by Plaintiff) to serve the Prior Owner with notice failed.  Ultimately, Plaintiff proceeded by serving the Minnesota Secretary of State as agent for the Prior Owner.  In this action, the trial court granted summary judgment for the Prior Owner, holding that Prior Owner had not been properly served with “notice of intent to take tax deed.”  The SD Supreme Court reversed, upholding title in Plaintiff as purchaser at the tax sale.  The Court’s decision is 3/2, with majority opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.  Justice Kern filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice DeVaney concurs. 

The dissent’s view is that the tax deed is void on the basis that Plaintiff did “not establish that she personally served the Notice on the Minnesota Secretary of State as required by SDCL 10-25-5.”

The majority opinion upholds service by mail to the Minnesota Secretary of State, stating in note 4, “SDCL 15-6-4(d) does not define the method of delivery required to accomplish service. In fact, the service rules contemplate that delivery may take place by mail when there is an acceptance of service. See SDCL 15-6-4(j).”

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

Inmate denied appellate review of habeas dismissal

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:

 

1. Inmate denied possibility of review in case where habeas counsel failed to seek certificate of probable cause for appeal of trial court’s dismissal

 

LEE v. WEBER, 2023 S.D. 54:  This is an action for habeas relief filed by a prisoner who was sentenced to life for 2^nd degree murder in 1998.  This is actually the prisoner’s 2^nd habeas action and it includes the assertion that his attorney in his 1^st habeas action was ineffective for failure to seek a certificate of probable cause for an appeal.  This 2^nd action was filed in 2007, but languished on the docket until 2018 at which time the trial court issued an order to show cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute.  State moved to dismiss the action on the basis that prisoner did not have a right to appeal the dismissal of his 1^st habeas action and because notice had not been timely served on the State, arguing that the 30 day time limit of 21-27-18.1 is absolute.  The trial court denied the State’s Motions to Dismiss. This is an interlocutory appeal by the State.

In this decision, the State prevails.  But, this decision generates 3 separate opinions.  The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Myren and agreed to by Chief Justice Jensen.  Justice Salter filed a separate concurring opinion.  Justice DeVaney filed a separate concurring opinion, with which Justice Kern agrees.  The issue that divides the Justices appears to be the applicability (or continued stare decisis effect) of Jackson v. Weber, 2001 S.D. 30 and the possibility of relief for prisoner (in this situation) under Rule 60(b) (civil for collateral attacks of civil judgments, SDLC 15-6-60(b)). 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

 

40 year prison sentence upheld for Defendant who was 14 years old at the time of the offense

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:

 

1. 40 year prison sentence upheld for Defendant who was 14 years old at the time of the offense

 

STATE v. BLACK CLOUD, 2023 S.D. 53: Defendant, who was 14 years old at the time of the offense, was tried as an adult and found guilty of 2^nd degree murder by jury. The trial court sentenced Defendant to 40 years in prison.  Defendant’s 16 year old companion Johnson -- who was present during the events related to the killing, but who did not pull the trigger --  was tried as an adult.  Johnson “pled guilty to aggravated assault and accessory to [the] crime,” and received a 20 year sentence.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, ruling against Defendant on each of the following assertions of error:

 

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Black Cloud’s motion for a mistrial following the voir dire discussion regarding Black Cloud being tried in adult court.

2. Whether comments to the jury regarding Johnson’s guilty plea constituted plain error.

3. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion when it refused to instruct the jury to disregard Johnson’s guilty plea.

4. Whether the circuit court erred in excluding evidence that [the victim] was on parole at the time of his death.

5. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by imposing a 40-year sentence or erred by imposing a sentence in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

 

The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

Although the State had made some inappropriate comments in voir dire relating to the fact the Defendant was being “tried as an adult,” the trial court directed the State’s Attorney to provide an explanation which “clarified” the inappropriate comments.

 

As to the propriety of transfer from Juvenile Court to Circuit Court, the SD Supreme Court held that the transfer “issue is not properly before us.” (footnote 10).

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

Deadwood Dispute

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:

 

1)    Deadwood Hotel/Casino Sale Dispute laid to rest

 

BROCKLEY v. ELLIS, ET AL., 2023 S.D. 52:  Protracted litigation in regard to the sale of a hotel/casino in Deadwood.  The events giving rise to litigation are not susceptible to a succinct summary.  The opening paragraph of the opinion describes the resolution of the dispute at the trial level and on appeal, as follows:

[¶1.] The circuit court entered two orders in which it denied requests from Mark and Annesse Brockley (the Brockleys) to hold Michael Trucano (Trucano), the Michael J. Trucano Living Trust (Trucano Trust), and Hickoks Hotel & Suites, LLC (Hickoks) in contempt. The Brockleys filed a timely appeal. We affirm.

This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Myren.   

This decision may be accessed at

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

 

 

3 reversals (civil cases); 1 affirmance (criminal case)

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down four decisions this morning:

 

1. Mechanic’s lien enforced;

 

2. Option agreement upheld:

 

3. Attempted modification of variance rejected; and

 

4. LWOP sentence upheld.

 

 

Summaries follows:

 

SMITH MASONRY v. WIPI GROUP, USA, INC., 2023 S.D. 48:  This is an action for a mechanic’s lien foreclosure and attorney fees.  A counterclaim was filed. Following a 6-day bench trial, the trial court denied relief to both plaintiff and defendant invoking “principles of equity” to support its ruling.  The trial court also ordered each side bear its own attorney fee obligation.  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, ordering the “[trial] court to enter a judgment of foreclosure in favor of Smith Masonry on its mechanic’s lien.” The Court also ordered the trial court to reconsider Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees.  This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.

 

PARMELY TRUST v. MAGNESS, 2023 S.D. 49: This dispute, as well as its resolution at the trial level and on appeal, is summarize in the opening paragraph as follows:

 

[¶1.] The Genevieve J. Parmely Revocable Trust sought a declaratory judgment asking the court to determine that an option agreement made with Brad Magness was invalid because of the absence of consideration. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment regarding the existence of consideration. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Trust. Magness appeals. We reverse and remand with direction to enter summary judgment on that issue in favor of Magness.

 

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

 

GONSOR v. DAY COUNTY, 2023 S.D. 50: Landowners were granted a variance from zoning requirement (for grading rocks and setbacks) as to their property.  This decision was “filed” on or before December 15, 2015.  Neighbors requested a reconsideration on January 14, 2016.  On March 29, 2016, Zoning Board “modified” the variance by imposing an additional requirement.  Landowners then sought a building permit 4 years later and were denied because on non-compliance with the “modification” which was subsequently imposed.  Landowners sued County Commission and Board for Declaratory Judgment. Both the County Commission and the trial court ruled against the landowners, due to non-compliance with the “modification.” The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded.   Applying SDCL 11-2-61, the Court stated:

 

[¶13.] As noted in Jundt, the “right to reverse an earlier, erroneous adjudication lasts until jurisdiction is lost by appeal or until a reasonable time has run, which would at least be co-extensive with the time required by statute for review.” 2007 S.D. 62, ¶ 7, 736 N.W.2d at 512 (quoting Stearns-Hotzfield v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 360 N.W.2d 384, 389 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)). Consequently, any authority the Board of Adjustment had to reconsider its November 2015 decision ceased to exist when that decision became final on January 14, 2016. The filing of a request for reconsideration did not extend the time to appeal, and the Board of Adjustment did not reconsider the variance before the appeal time expired. Consequently, the Board of Adjustment no longer had the authority to reconsider the variance when it did so on March 29, 2016.

 

This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Myren.

 

STATE v. CAFFEE, 2023 S.D. 51: Upon a guilty plea to 1^st degree manslaughter, Defendant was sentenced to life without parole.  The SD Supreme Court rejected Defendant’s appeal predicated upon cruel and unusual punishment and abuse of discretion.  The underlying facts, as set forth in the opinion are as follows:

 

[¶1.] On October 24, 2021, while a no-contact order was in place, Mitch Caffee (Caffee), armed with a pistol, forced his way into the home where his wife, Katie Caffee (Katie), was staying with her ninety-year-old grandmother, Lorraine Redmann. Caffee had posted bond following a prior violation of the no-contact order just four days before. Once inside Redmann’s home, he struck Katie and pushed her down onto a couch. When Redmann came out of her bedroom and tried to call 911, Caffee fatally shot her in the face. With Redmann lying dead on the floor, Caffee proceeded to hold Katie hostage in the home for hours while he contemplated his next steps. Caffee eventually surrendered and was arrested and charged with multiple offenses including first-degree murder.

 

This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Kern.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

Appeals by Juveniles sentenced to prison dismissed

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:

 

1)    Appeals by Juveniles sentenced to prison dismissed

 

INTEREST OF S.A. and INTEREST OF E.B., 2023 S.D. 47:  In separate cases, now consolidated on appeal, Juveniles seek to appeal determinations of “juvenile delinquency” and orders of commitment to the Department of Corrections.  Both appeals are dismissed because “the juveniles failed to properly serve the notices of appeal on their respondent parents.”  This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion designated as per curiam. 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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