Mother/Son Dispute Addressed

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

 

1)    Mother/Son Dispute addressed

 

 

Summary follows:

 

LANGBEHN v. LANGBEHN, 2025 S.D. 11:  This dispute is between a Mother and her Son involving “a substantial amount of crop and pastureland in Beadle County,” which Mother and her Husband (Son’s father) owned during their marriage.  Husband/Father died in March, 2008 and this litigation evolved.  Below is the opening paragraph of the Court’s opinion (which gives an overview) and also the final paragraph of the Court’s opinion (which gives a summary of the result on appeal):

 

[¶1.] Mary Langbehn sued her son, Michael Langbehn, and his company, Langbehn Land and Cattle Co. (LL&C), alleging Michael breached his fiduciary duty as a co-trustee of his deceased father’s trust. Michael filed counterclaims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit relating to improvements he claimed to have made to real estate he leased from his father’s trust and Mary’s separate living trust. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Mary on her claims as well as on Michael’s counterclaims. The court also removed Michael as a co-trustee and awarded Mary $513,796.94 in damages. Michael appeals. We reverse.

***

[¶56.] Because Michael did not engage in impermissible self-dealing and genuine issues of material fact remain concerning whether Michael breached his fiduciary duty to the credit trust, we reverse the circuit court’s decision to grant summary judgment and its decision to remove him as a co-trustee. However, we affirm the court’s decision to grant summary judgment on Michael’s counterclaims. The case is remanded for further proceedings in part, affirm in part, and remand for further proceedings.

This decision is unanimous with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

Tort Verdict agains Highway Patrolman upheld; Medical Cannabis Dispensary prevails in license request

 The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

 

1)    Tort verdict against Highway Patrolman upheld;

 

2)   Medical Cannabis Dispensary prevails in license request;

  

Summaries follows:

WEILAND v. BUMANN, 2025 S.D. 9:  This is a personal injury suit against a Highway Patrolman for a motor vehicle accident in which the Patrolman’s “immediate supervisor, determined that [the Patrolman] violated SDHP safety policies and that the accident was preventable.”  Plaintiff’s claims are premised on 1 Count of Negligence and 5 Counts of Negligence Per Se’ (citing 5 separate traffic offenses).  The jury awarded Plaintiff $21,122.25, consisting of, “$17,500 in non-economic damages and $1,161.50 in past medical expenses.”  The trial court entered judgment for Plaintiff on the verdict. Plaintiff appealed and Defendant filed a cross appeal.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed.  This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter.  (Note: This accident occurred in Minnehaha County and was investigated by a Minnehaha County Deputy Sheriff who prepared an Accident Report.)

PUFFY’S, LLC v. DEP’T OF HEALTH, 2025 S.D. 10:  Medical Cannabis Dispensary prevails in dispute with State regarding State’s failure to appropriately issue it a license.  The history, facts, and result are reported in the opening paragraph of the Court’s opinion as follows:

 

[¶1.] Puffy’s, LLC was first in line on a waiting list to receive a state registration certificate from the South Dakota Department of Health (Department). The certificate was required in order to operate a medical cannabis dispensary in Rapid City (City). After the Department failed to issue the certificate, Puffy’s brought a mandamus action in circuit court seeking an order compelling the Department to issue the certificate to Puffy’s. The circuit court granted the writ of mandamus. The Department appeals, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction, or in the alternative, abused its discretion in granting the writ. We affirm.

 

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

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

SD Supreme Court hands down 5 decisions, mixed bag of reversals and separate opinions

The SD Supreme Court handed down five decisions this morning:

 

1)   Reemployment benefits appropriate;

2) Set back restriction upheld by Supreme Court;

3) Defense verdict in personal injury action upheld by 4-1 ruling

4) Collateral attack under Rule 60(b)(6) permitted by Supreme Court;

5) Eviction from 5200 acre farm upheld.

  

Summaries follows:

 

BLACK HILLS ADVENTURE LODGING, LLC v. DLR, REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE DIVISION, 2025 S.D. 4:  This case involves an application, “for reemployment assistance benefits with the South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation” by an individual who cleaned cabins. The defense was that she was an independent contractor, not an employee.   The ALJ and the Circuit Court ruled that this an employment situation and “ordered [Employer] to pay into the unemployment compensation fund based on the wages paid to [employee] and others similarly situated to her.”  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, but ordered that the language “and others similarly situated” was a ‘bridge too far’ (my words, not the Court’s) because:

[¶38.] Permitting the Department to hold [Employer] liable for “others similarly situated” to [Employee] would run directly counter to the individualized analysis that must be made to determine whether an individual is an employee of a putative employer.

 

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

DECRAMER v. DORALE, MCCOOK COUNTY BD OF ADJUSTMENT, 2025 S.D. 5: County Board of Adjustment granted variance from 9 foot setback rule (“structures must be set back a minimum of nine feet from neighboring property lines”) to home builder after he had already constructed his house.  The Circuit Court denied relief to neighbor, sought by a petition for writ of certiorari.  The SD Supreme Court reversed, stating:

[¶22.] Because the Board acted illegally and in excess of its authority by granting a variance that did not comply with either SDCL 11-2-53(2) or the Ordinance, the circuit court should have reversed the decision of the Board and vacated the grant of the variance.

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

GEERDES v. LIKNESS, 2025 S.D. 6:  This is a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident.  The jury found for the Defendant on the issue of causation.  Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial, premised on the assertion that Defendant hadadmitted causation, was denied.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, in a (4-1) ruling.  The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Myren.  Justice Kern dissented, stating:

[¶30.] In my view, defense counsel admitted causation and the circuit court erred in submitting the causation question to the jury and abused its discretion in denying Geerdes’ motion for a new trial.

ESTATE OF MACK, 2025 S.D. 7:  This is a collateral attack upon a probate order of distribution. The attack is lodged under SDCL 15-6-60(b)(6) – “Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.”  The recipient’s attorney at the time had not communicated with the recipient and was in the process of being disciplined by the State Bar.  The trial court denied relief.  But, the SD Supreme Court reversed, holding:

[¶25.] Based upon [Recipient’s] unrefuted affidavit and the pending disciplinary proceedings at the time involving [his attorney], in which the Board expressed “serious concerns” about his ability to practice law, we conclude that extraordinary circumstances existed as required by Rule 60(b)(6) to set aside the order of distribution. Because the circuit court determined the distribution was fair and equitable, it concluded that no injustice would occur by denying the motion to vacate. The circuit court’s assessment of the distribution was not based on a current valuation of the estate assets and was made without affording Robert an opportunity for a hearing on the proposed distribution. Under these circumstances, the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the order for distribution pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6).

 

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

STOCK v. GARRETT, 2025 S.D. 8: This litigation involves 5,200 acres of farm land in Sully County apparently worth slightly more than $10 million.  The plaintiffs sued claiming a right to possession under a lease with an option to purchase, alleging a default in the lease payments.  Jury trial resulted in a verdict for Plaintiffs which the trial court enforced by ordering eviction.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed.  All five justices voted to affirm in a 3-2 ruling.  The majority opinion is authored by Chief Justice Jensen.  Justice DeVaney filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kern agreed.  The litigation was complicated by the fact a parallel proceeding had been filed in federal court by Plaintiffs.  The purpose of Justice DeVaney’s concurring opinion is to express another view in regard to the federal court proceeding, as explained by Justice DeVaney as follows:

[¶65.] I concur with the majority opinion, but I write separately on the parallel litigation issue because I arrive at the same result in a different manner.

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

  

Two Decisions by SD Supreme Court this morning

 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 .

 

SD Supreme Court Hands Down 3 Decisions

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

 

1)    Denial of Motion to Suppress upheld;

 

2)   Stare Decisis overturned, upholding previous dissenting view of Retired Justice Judith Meierhenry;

 

3) For-Profit corporation (Black Hills Advocate LLC) not eligible for appointment as guardian.

  

Summaries follows:

 

STATE v. HOLY, 2025 S.D. 19:  After having his Motion to Suppress Evidence denied, Defendant secured the following result in the trial court:

[¶13.] At a subsequent court trial, the circuit court relied upon stipulated facts to find [Defendant] guilty of both counts. The court suspended a prison sentence and ordered supervised probation for the possession of a controlled substance charge and imposed court costs for the misdemeanor drug paraphernalia charge.

This appeal focuses exclusively on the Motion to Suppress with Defendant arguing, “that police officers unreasonably extended the stop by asking about contraband without any level of suspicion.”  The SD Supreme Court rejected Defendant’s argument and affirmed.  This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

EARLL v. FARMERS MUTUAL INSURANCE, 2025 S.D. 20: Motor vehicle accident resulted in death.  Parents and Estate of Deceased collected $25,000 from tortfeasor’s liability insurer and then collected $75,000 from UIM (Underinsured Motorist) coverage of vehicle being driven by Deceased.  Parents and Estate sought additional coverage of $250,000 under “separate motor vehicle policy they purchased from Farmers Mutual, which provided coverage for two vehicles owned by the [family] that were not involved in the accident.”  The trial court ruled for Farmers Mutual, applying the precedent of De Smet Insurance Company of South Dakota v. Pourier, 2011 S.D. 47, ¶ 12, 802 N.W.2d 447, 451–52 (a 3/2 decision “which held that an ‘owned but not insured’ exclusion for UIM coverage was enforceable and not void as against public policy.”)  In this appeal, family requests the SD Supreme Court to overrule the Pourier decision, and the SD Supreme Court does so!  In overturning precedent, the Court handed down a lengthy opinion which “consider[s] the [four prongs of] the well-established doctrine of stare decisis.”  (the four prongs being, “(1) Quality of prior decision, (2) Workability, (3) Consistency, (4)Subsequent developments, and (5) Extent of Reliance.”) NOTE: The discussion by the SD Supreme Court in connection with the articulated criteria needed to overturn stare decisis precedent is traceable to its 2024 decision involving Governor Noem’s Request concerning potential conflicts of interest for legislators and an older 1920 Decision.  A concluding paragraph of the opinion states:

[¶48.] While we acknowledge Pourier’s careful reasoning by a sharply divided Court, our review of the public policy of this State for UM/UIM coverage and the Janus factors lead us to conclude that Pourier is an outlier in this Court’s decisions. For the reasons discussed above, we reverse our decision in Pourier and we hold that the “owned but not insured” exclusion to UIM coverage in motor vehicle policies—when used to deny coverage to an insured individual under circumstances like those in this case—violates South Dakota public policy.

NOTE: Retired Justice Judith Meierhenry’s dissenting opinion in Pourier was examined and found to be the proper rationale by this unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. 

 

GUARDIANSHIP AND CONSERVATORSHIP OF FLYTE, 2025 S.D. 21: In adjudicating conflicting requests [by Daughter and Son] to be appointed guardian of a dementia-afflicted parent who owns land worth more than $2 million, the trial court, acting sua sponte, appointed “Black Hills Advocate, LLC (BHA), a for-profit corporation” as guardian.  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, stating:

[¶56.] We conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint [Daughter] as Gerda’s guardian and conservator. We also conclude that SDCL 29A-5-304 does not restrict the circuit court’s authority to appoint a third-party guardian or conservator sua sponte where such appointment is in the best interests of the protected person. However, we hold that SDCL 29A-5-110 does not authorize for-profit entities to be appointed as guardians or conservators, with the exception of statutorily qualified banks and trust companies. Therefore, we reverse the circuit court’s appointment of BHA and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Additionally, we award [Son] one-half of his requested appellate attorney fee.

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

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

Limited Personal Injury Award upheld by 3 Justice Majority

 

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

 

1)    Limited Personal Injury Award upheld by 3 Justice Majority

 

 

Summary follows:

 

BRAUN v. WOLLMAN, 2024 S.D. 83: This is an action for personal injuries sustained when Defendant rear-ended Plaintiff.  Plaintiff sought substantial damages for “personal injuries, pain, suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.”  The jury awarded $125,000, an amount much lower than requested.  The trial court, relying on the business records exception to the hearsay rule, permitted Defendant to introduce extensive medical records of the Plaintiff in cross examination of Plaintiff.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a 3-1-1 ruling.  All five Justices agreed that the trial court erred in the admission of the “contested medical records in their entirety.” (quoted language from Justice Kern’s opinion, ¶50).  The majority opinion, authored by Justice DeVaney, holds that the error was not prejudicial.  Justice Kern and Justice Myren filed separate opinions, each expressing the view that prejudicial error occurred and stating that they would reverse and remand for new trial.

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

Three Decisions today by SD Supreme Court

 

The SD Supreme Court handed three decisions this morning:

1)    Appeal dismissed for failure to serve Notice of Appeal;

 

2)   Request for Change of Judge improperly denied;

 

3)   5 year prison sentence upheld

 

Summaries follows:

 

DITTUS v. BLACK HILLS CARE & REHAB AND AVANTARA, 2024 S.D. 80: Appellant’s effort to appeal results in a dismissal because of failure to properly serve a Notice of Appeal.  The result in the trial court is described in the opening paragraph as follows: 

[¶1.] In a lawsuit claiming a wrongful termination, Krista Dittus appeals from an order striking her response to a motion for summary judgment, and from  an order granting summary judgment in favor of RC North SD Skilled Nursing  Facility, LLC d/b/a Avantara North (Avantara).

The problem with Appellant’s effort to appeal is described as follows:

 

[¶5.] Thereafter, Avantara filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction based on Dittus’s failure to serve the notice of appeal as required by SDCL 15-26A-4. In support of the motion, Avantara included in its attached documents an email from a Unified Judicial System (UJS) employee who confirmed the notice of appeal had only been “EFiled” but not served through the Odyssey system.

The SD Supreme Court agreed with Appellee’s argument and dismissed the appeal, holding:

[¶11.] Dittus does not dispute that the notice of appeal was not served on Avantara’s counsel. In both her response to the motion to dismiss the appeal and her initial appellate brief, Dittus states, without further explanation, that the omission “was an inadvertent error.” Moreover, the fact the notice of appeal was only electronically filed, but not served, was readily apparent in the Odyssey confirmation email sent to Dittus’s counsel on October 13. Under SDCL 16-21A-7(2), “[e]lectronic service is not effective if the party making service learns that the attempted service did not reach the person to be served.” Because service of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional, we lack appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. 

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

 

ESTATE OF PAUL O’FARRELL v. GRAND VALLEY HUTTERIAN BRETHREN, 2024 S.D. 81: Judge Spears, having denied a request for change of judge, ruled for Defendants and awarded attorney fees.  This decision vacates all orders entered by Circuit Judge Spears and reverses the Circuit’s Presiding Judge’s Decision to Deny the Affidavit for the purpose of disqualifying Judge Spears.  The case is “remand[ed] for the appointment of a replacement judge.” This ruling is a 3-1-1 decision. The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Myren. Justice Salter dissents. Chief Justice Jensen concurs in part and dissents in part.

 

STATE v. BELT, 2024 S.D. 82: The lower court’s 5 year prison sentence is affirmed in this decision.  The situation is adequately described in the opening paragraph as follows:

[¶1.] Following a jury trial, William Belt was convicted of sexual contact with a person incapable of consenting. In this appeal, he challenges the circuit court’s decision to allow expert testimony concerning the presence of inconclusive male DNA found in samples taken from the victim. He also challenges the court’s jury instruction that referenced the “interests of society” and the court’s decision to deny his motion for judgment of acquittal. We affirm.

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

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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