Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Brandon Hahn was convicted by a jury for intentional damage to property, with the damage amount totaling more than $1,000 but less than $2,500. The property in question was the front door of 88-year-old Delores Moen's home, which Hahn was accused of damaging. Hahn was also charged with obstructing a public officer and disorderly conduct, the latter of which was later dismissed. The State presented multiple witnesses, including Delores' neighbors and the responding police officers, who testified about Hahn's aggressive conduct and their interactions with him. Hahn himself denied any responsibility for damaging the door.In the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, South Dakota, Hahn moved for judgment of acquittal on the intentional damage to property charge, arguing that the State had not established the fair market value of the door, which he claimed included depreciation. The court denied his motion, concluding that the State could prove the damage amount element through evidence of the cost of reasonable repairs. Hahn was found guilty on both counts and was sentenced to an enhanced 15-year prison sentence on Count 1 with ten years suspended and a 30-day jail sentence on Count 2.In the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota, Hahn appealed, claiming that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal on the intentional damage to property charge. He argued that the jury could not properly apply the damage element without first establishing the fair market value of the property. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the current version of the intentional damage to property statute focuses on the "damage to property" and not the value of the property. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the damage Hahn caused to Delores’ door was at least $1,000 but less than $2,500, and affirmed the circuit court's decision. View "State v. Hahn" on Justia Law

The case involves MRose Development Co., LLC and Jason Schumacher (MRose) who sought to develop farmland located along Swan Lake in Turner County into 15 lakefront lots. The land was currently included in an agricultural zoning district, and due to residential density restrictions, MRose applied to rezone the land into a lake residential district. The Turner County Board of County Commissioners (the County) denied the application, and MRose appealed to the circuit court.The circuit court reversed the County's decision, interpreting Turner County's zoning ordinance to require approval of the rezoning application as a purely ministerial act because the land was situated along Swan Lake. The County appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reversed the circuit court's decision. The court found that the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the 2008 Zoning Ordinance, which it believed required the County to approve MRose's rezoning application. The Supreme Court held that no provision in the entire 2008 Zoning Ordinance stated that lakefront property must be zoned Lake Residential simply by virtue of its location. The court also held that the County's decision to deny MRose's rezoning application was not arbitrary, as MRose failed to meet its burden of proof that the County acted arbitrarily. View "Mrose Development Co. v. Turner County Bd. Of Commissioners" on Justia Law

In South Dakota, Emily Bialota sought to gain title to a property previously owned by Lakota Lakes, LLC, which was sold at a tax sale due to unpaid property taxes. Bialota argued that she had properly served Lakota Lakes with a notice of intent to take tax deed, while Lakota Lakes claimed it had not been validly served, rendering the tax deed void. The circuit court granted Lakota Lakes' motion for summary judgment, determining that Bialota had not properly served the notice. Bialota appealed this decision. The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed and remanded the lower court's decision. It held that under Minnesota law, which Lakota Lakes operated under, the Minnesota Secretary of State was the valid agent for service of process as Lakota Lakes had been administratively terminated and failed to maintain a registered agent for service of process. The court further held that Bialota had personally served the notice on the Minnesota Secretary of State, which was deemed proper under South Dakota law. Therefore, the court concluded that Bialota had correctly served Lakota Lakes and was entitled to the tax deed to the property. View "Bialota V. Lakota Lakes" on Justia Law

In South Dakota, realtor Joshua Uhre, who owns Uhre Realty Corporation (URC) and Uhre Property Management Corporation (UPM), had a dispute with Benjamin and Leslie Tronnes over the sale of their property. The Tronneses had contracted with Uhre to sell their property and entered into a property management agreement that authorized Uhre to lease and manage the property if it did not sell. After the property was leased to a tenant, the Tronneses sold the property directly to the tenant after the listing agreement expired. Uhre claimed that his realty company was entitled to a sales commission and that his property management company was entitled to a management fee for the entire lease agreement, despite its early termination. Uhre sued the Tronneses for breach of the listing agreement, breach of the management agreement, and civil conspiracy. The Tronneses counterclaimed, alleging that Uhre and his companies had interfered with their business expectation with the tenant.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota held that Uhre was not entitled to a sales commission because he did not procure a ready, willing, and able buyer during the term of the listing agreement. The court also rejected Uhre's argument that the lease agreement gave him an option to buy the property, finding that it did not contain the necessary terms for a valid option contract. Additionally, the court found that the Tronneses did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Regarding the management agreement, the court ruled in favor of the Tronneses, stating that Uhre was only entitled to 10% of the monthly rent that had accrued through June 3, 2021, which he had already received. Finally, the court reversed the lower court's determination that the Tronneses were entitled to attorney fees, finding that the listing agreement only authorized fees in the event of a breach of contract. View "Uhre Realty V. Tronnes" on Justia Law

In 1999, Bernard Stockwell had his agriculturally zoned property in McCook County, South Dakota, replatted into five individual lots. In 2022, he sought an opinion from the McCook County Zoning Administrator on the number of building eligibilities for his lots. The Zoning Administrator determined that all five lots shared one building eligibility, based on her interpretation of the 2014 McCook County Zoning Ordinance. Stockwell appealed this decision to the McCook County Board of Adjustment (BOA), arguing each lot should have its own building eligibility. The BOA sided with the Zoning Administrator.Stockwell then petitioned the Circuit Court for a writ of certiorari and sought declaratory relief. The County sought summary judgment, which the Circuit Court granted. Stockwell appealed to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.The Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court’s decision. The Court held that the 2014 zoning ordinance unambiguously refers to its own effective date, and the Circuit Court erred by not applying this definition, despite recognizing that Stockwell’s lots meet this definition. The Court also noted that if the County wishes to change the definition, it is up to the County’s legislative body, not the courts, to do so. View "Stockwell V. Mccook County Board Of Commissioners" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota, Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores and One Shot, LLC, filed a petition against the City of Wall, South Dakota, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission for the City. Love’s, a corporation that operates 24-hour truck stops, entered into an agreement to purchase a 13-acre parcel of land from One Shot, contingent on obtaining the necessary zoning and permitting approvals from the city. After the City Council denied Love's rezoning and building permit applications, Love’s filed a petition for writ of mandamus, writ of certiorari, and request for declaratory relief with the circuit court. The circuit court granted Love's petition in part, declaring that the City’s Zoning Ordinance did not apply to the property and required the City to reconsider Love's application for a building permit. The City Council reconsidered and again denied Love's building permit application. Love’s then filed a motion for order to show cause requesting the circuit court to find the City in contempt of the court’s order and sought issuance of a building permit. The circuit court found the City in contempt and ordered the City to issue Love's a building permit. The City appealed.The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision. The Supreme Court found that the circuit court order was clearly erroneous in finding that the City willfully and contumaciously violated the court’s order to reconsider and vote on Love's requested building permit. The Supreme Court also noted that the circuit court’s remedy for its finding of contempt was inconsistent with the purpose of civil contempt and exceeded its authority by imposing a punitive, rather than coercive civil contempt remedy. The court's order to issue a building permit was punitive and denied the City the opportunity to purge itself of contempt and come into compliance with the original court order. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s finding of contempt and the order issuing a building permit to Love's. View "Love’s Travel Stops V. City Of Wall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of the South Dakota Department of Transportation (DOT) in the underlying action alleging that a newly-constructed median in the highway abutting property owned by Legacy Land Company effected a taking entitling it to compensation, holding that there was no error.The DOT constructed the median at issue as part of a highway improvement project. While the median did not eliminate access to the property owned by Legacy, it did change the access because vehicles could no longer make a left turn directly into the Legacy property and those leaving the property could only turn right onto the highway. The district court granted summary judgment for the DOT. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, although the median's construction affected the ease with which vehicles traveling east could access Legacy's property, the record did not support Legacy's claim that the median substantially impaired its right of access. View "S.D. Dep’t Of Transportation v. Legacy Land Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment for Lakota Lakes and denying Emily Bialota's cross-motion for summary judgment in this quiet title action, holding that Bialota accomplished valid service on the Minnesota Secretary of State.Bialota brought an action to quiet title in Pennington County, alleging that she had fee simple ownership in real property previously owned by Lakota Lakes but later sold at a tax sale. In its summary judgment motion, Lakota Lakes claimed that it had not been validly served with the notice of intent to take tax deed, rendering the tax deed void. In her cross-motion for summary judgment, Bialota argued that service upon Lakota Lakes was proper and that Pennington County had correctly issued a tax deed based upon her affidavit of completed service. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) South Dakota law controlled this Court's determination whether Bialota personally served the Secretary as Lakota Lakes' registered agent; (2) Bialota accomplished valid service on the Secretary; and (3) Bialota was entitled to the tax deed to the property. View "Bialota v. Lakota Lakes, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the determination of the circuit court that the Day County Board of Adjustment could reconsider and modify a previously-granted variance, holding that the Board of Adjustment no longer had the authority to reconsider the variance when it did so.Appellants were informed that their property violated the Day County Planning and Zoning Ordinance because they altered the grading and added rocks. Appellant subsequently sought a variance from the ordinance allowing the existing grading and rocks to remain. The Board of Adjustment unanimously approved the application. The Board subsequently reconsidered the variance and modified it. Appellants later applied for a permit to build a house on their property. The Board of Adjustment denied the application because Appellants had not complied with the modified variance. The circuit court denied Appellants' request for relief and dismissed their complaint. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the Board of Adjustment did not reconsider the variance before the appeal time expired, Appellants were entitled to a declaration of their rights under the variance the Board granted. View "Gonsor v. Day County Planning Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's requests for writs of mandamus and certiorari to reverse the Clay County Board of Adjustment's decision affirming the order of the Clay County Planning Commission denying Appellant's proposed conditional use permit, holding that the circuit court erred in dismissing the writ of certiorari as untimely.In denying Appellant's requests, the circuit court determined that the petition for writ of certiorari was untimely and that a writ of mandamus was not an available remedy. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying the writ of mandamus; but (2) erred in determining that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the writ of certiorari. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether Appellant's petition seeking a writ of certiorari was timely filed. View "Hauck v. Clay County Commission" on Justia Law