Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Mary Lou Fox died, Plaintiff, Mary Lou's daughter and the administratrix of Mary Lou's estate, sued Mary Lou's former husband, Robert Fox. Plaintiff alleged that Mary Lou jointly owned 960 acres of farmland with Robert, that Robert deprived Mary Lou of her ownership interest in the land, and that Plaintiff was thereby deprived of an inheritance from Mary Lou. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Robert, concluding that Mary Lou had no ownership interest in the 960 acres. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that each cause of action brought by Plaintiff failed because Mary Lou had no claim to a right of ownership in the 960 acres and Plaintiff had no authority supporting her claims. View "Niesche v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who owned a landlocked parcel of land, brought suit against Defendant, claiming they had an implied easement over Defendant's land. The circuit court granted judgment for Plaintiffs, concluding that an easement implied from prior use existed. The Supreme Court reversed. On remand, Plaintiffs argued for a common law implied easement by necessity. The circuit court found three separate grounds that prevented Plaintiffs from being entitled to an implied easement by necessity: (1) the requirements for an implied easement by necessity were not met, (2) an adequate remedy at law barred equitable relief, and (3) South Dakota's Marketable Title Act (SDMTA) barred the action because the severance occurred outside SDMTA's twenty-two year provision. The Supreme Court affirmed on the ground that SDMTA barred Plaintiffs' action.View "Springer v. Cahoy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was the owner of fourteen "recreational park trailers" that were used as cabins for lodging in a campground Plaintiff operated. Pennington County assessed the cabins as real property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The County Board of Equalization affirmed the assessment. On appeal, the circuit court reversed and granted summary judgment to Plaintiff, concluding that the cabins were not taxable under S.D. Codified Laws 10-4-2. The County appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, when considered together, the facts of this case established that Plaintiff's cabins were "improvements to land" within the meaning of section 10-4-2(2). View "Rushmore Shadows, LLC v. Pennington County Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law