Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Thomas and Elizabeth Edgar entered into a lease agreement with Boyd and Merlyn Mills concerning land in Faulk County. Under the belief that he had an option to purchase the real estate at the conclusion of the lease term, Thomas Edgar later contacted an attorney to prepare a warranty deed so that the Millses could convey the real estate to the Edgars. After the Edgars’ attempts to execute the deed with the Millses failed, the Edgars sued the Millses for specific performance. The Millses counterclaimed, alleging that the Edgars breached the lease agreement. The trial court found the lease agreement ambiguous and considered parol evidence. The court ultimately concluded that the parties intended the lease agreement to be a lease with an option to purchase and ordered specific performance compelling the Millses to execute a warranty deed in favor of the Edgars. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded, holding (1) the trial court erred when it interpreted the parties’ agreement to be ambiguous and when it directed the Millses to execute a warranty deed in favor of the Edgars; and (2) under the lease, the Millses were entitled to reimbursement of their reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by reason of the Edgars’ breach of the lease agreement. View "Edgar v. Mills" on Justia Law

Landowners in Day County filed a lawsuit against the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks (GF&P), Secretary Jeffrey Vonk, the State, and certain unnamed defendants who have used or intend to use the waters and ice overlying Landowners’ private property for recreational purposes. Landowners sought declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the public’s right to use the floodwaters on their property. Landowners asked the circuit court to certify the defendant class to include all people who have used or intend to use the bodies of water overlying Landowners’ private property. The court circuit certified the defendant class and appointed the Secretary of GF&P as the class representative. After a hearing, the circuit court entered declaratory and injunctive relief against the named and class defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err when it certified the defendant class in this case; (2) did not err in granting declaratory relief, but, on remand, the circuit court must modify the language of relief provided in this opinion; and (3) did not err in issuing an injunction, but, on remand, the circuit court must modify the language of the injunction as provided in this opinion. View "Duerre v. Hepler" on Justia Law

Homeowner’s fixtures encroached on Landowner’s property. Homeowner sued for an implied easement to keep the encroachments on the adjoining property. Landowner counterclaimed for trespass and sought a mandatory injunction to remove the encroachments. The circuit court denied Homeowner’s claim for an implied easement and ruled that the encroachments constituted a trespass but nevertheless denied Landowner’s request for an injunction. Instead, the court ordered that the encroachments would not be subject to an order of removal but would have to be removed if they became subject to relocation in the future. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying an injunction to remove the septic system, allowing it to temporarily remain, and awarding nominal damages; but (2) the circuit court erred in failing to balance the equities and hardships as to the remaining encroachments. On remand, the court should balance the equities relating to those encroachments. View "Hoffman v. Bob Law, Inc." on Justia Law

Prior to reconstructing the interchange at Interstate 90 and Cliff Avenues in Sioux Falls, the State instituted a quick-take condemnation action against two landowners (together, Defendants) and effected a partial taking of their real property south of the interchange on-ramp. Defendants did not contest the taking and requested that a jury determine damages. After a four-day trial, the jury awarded Defendants $551,125. The State appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) before a landowner may present evidence of and recover for loss resulting from a change in access, the court must first determine that such change amounts to a substantial impairment of access; (2) if the change in access amounts to a substantial impairment and is not caused by the State’s actual taking of the landowner’s property, the landowner must prove that the injury is peculiar to the landowner’s property and not of a kind suffered by the public as a whole; and (3) because the circuit court in this case did not make these determinations, the case must be remanded. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

JB Enterprises (JBE) owned property located on a corner lot abutting Cliff Avenue and 63rd Street in Sioux Falls. Prior to initiating a public improvement reconstructing the interchange at Interstate 90 and Cliff Avenue, the State instituted a quick-take condemnation action against JBE, contesting JBE’s “control of access” to its property. The State ultimately changed the public improvement and left intact JBE’s curb cut along Cliff Avenue. After the State closed the intersection of 63rd Street and Cliff Avenue, JBE requested a jury trial on damages, alleging that the State owned JBE’s right to “control of access” to its property. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the State, concluding that the State’s public improvement did not result in a compensable taking because the State did not physically take any of JBE’s property and did not eliminate JBE’s direct access to Cliff Avenue. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the State acquired the right to deprive JBE of access to Cliff Avenue, JBE must be compensated under the assumption that the State will do so. Remanded for a trial on damages. View "State v. JB Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

Carlyle Schleim owned, and Farmers State Bank of Canton held a mortgage on, property located near an intersection that was closed in connection with the State’s reconstruction of the interchange between Interstate 90 and Cliff Avenue. Schliem and the Bank brought an inverse-condemnation action against the State alleging that the closure of the intersection diminished the value of the subject property. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the State, concluding that Schliem did not identify a property interest that had been taken or damaged by the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Schliem did not suffer compensable loss by the intersection’s closure, and therefore, the circuit court properly granted summary judgment for the State. View "Schleim v. S.D. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Thomas Konrad and Myron Stoebner entered into a contract for the sale of real property. Under the contract, the Stoebners agreed to sell Konrad nine parcels of real estate. The contract contained an arbitration clause. When the Stoebners refused to close on the sale of Parcel 7, Konrad sent the Stoebners a demand for arbitration. The arbitrator ruled that the Stoebners breached the contract and ordered the Stoebners to transfer Parcel 7 to Konrad. The Stoebners moved to vacate the award, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by disregarding the contractual definition of “transfer.” The circuit court denied the Stoebners’ application and confirmed the arbitration award. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err when it confirmed the arbitration award in favor of Konrad because the arbitrator did not exceed his powers when he decided the issue submitted. View "Konrad v. Stoebner" on Justia Law

In 2005, Mother executed a power of attorney that appointed her son (Son) as her attorney-in-fact. Mother held a life estate in several properties to which her daughters (Daughters) held remainder interests. Prior to Mother’s death in 2013, Son had been leasing from Mother the land in which Daughters held remainder interests. In 2014, Daughters initiated this suit alleging that Son had breached his farmland lease by failing to pay rent on the property in which they received their remainder interests. The Estate also brought suit alleging that Son breached the fiduciary duties he owed to Mother. Prior to trial, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude extrinsic evidence of Mother’s intent with regards to the power of attorney. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Daughters on the breach of contract claim and in favor of the Estate on the breach of fiduciary duty claim. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred when it prevented Son from introducing relevant evidence related to, inter alia, the circumstances surrounding Mother’s arrangement of leasing her land to her family without charging rent. Remanded for a new trial. View "Hein v. Zoss" on Justia Law

A landowner’s successor in interest, a landowner’s straw man, and judgment lien creditors engaged in competing attempts to redeem in two mortgage foreclosures. The successor in interest successfully redeemed from a judgment lien creditor in the first foreclosure, but a senior mortgagee started a second foreclosure. A second judgment lien creditor redeemed in the second foreclosure, and the second foreclosure court concluded that the landowner and successor in interest waived the right to an owner’s final right of redemption. On appeal from the second foreclosure court’s waiver ruling, the landowner and successor in interest lost the land to the second judgment lien creditor. In the first foreclosure court, the successor in interest and landowner made equitable claims for the recovery of redemption money paid and still in the custody of the sheriff. The circuit court concluded that the landowner and successor in interest had no equitable claim to the money and awarded the money on deposit to the judgment lien creditor from who the redemption had been made. The landowner and successor in interest appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment. View "Farmpro Services, Inc. v. Finneman" on Justia Law

In 2015, the Sully County Board of Adjustment granted a conditional use permit (CUP) to Ring-Neck Energy & Feed, LLC for an ethanol plant. Petitioners filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the circuit court alleging that the Board’s decision granting the CUP was illegal. Ring-Neck Energy intervened and moved to quash the writ and dismiss the petition as untimely. The circuit court determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the petition was untimely under S.D. Codified Laws 11-2-61. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioners failed timely to appeal the Board’s decision to grant a CUP to Ring-Neck Energy. View "Hyde v. Sully County Bd. of Adjustment" on Justia Law