Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Acuity issued a commercial auto policy to Terra-Tek, LLC, which included John Waba and Sheila Foreman as additional named insureds. Waba was injured in an auto accident with an underinsured motorist while driving a vehicle not listed under Terra-Tek’s policy. Acuity denied Waba’s claim for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits, arguing that the vehicle he was driving was not covered under the policy. Acuity then sought a declaratory judgment to confirm that Waba was not entitled to UIM benefits.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in Brule County, South Dakota, reviewed the case. The court found that the UIM endorsement in Terra-Tek’s policy unambiguously provided coverage to Waba for the injuries sustained in the accident, despite the vehicle not being listed as a covered auto. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Waba, determining that the policy’s language did not require Waba to be occupying a covered auto to receive UIM benefits. Acuity appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that the UIM endorsement’s language did not limit coverage to injuries sustained while occupying a covered auto. The court noted that the policy’s definition of an insured for UIM coverage did not include such a limitation, unlike the liability coverage section, which explicitly required the insured to be occupying a covered auto. The court concluded that the policy provided UIM coverage to Waba for the accident, affirming the circuit court’s judgment in favor of Terra-Tek and Waba. View "Acuity V. Terra-Tek" on Justia Law

Leslie Torgerson, a non-Indian, and Terri Torgerson, an enrolled member of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Tribe (SWO), were married in South Dakota. Terri filed for divorce in the SWO tribal court, while Leslie filed for divorce in Roberts County. Leslie moved to dismiss the tribal court proceedings, arguing lack of jurisdiction and improper service, but the tribal court denied his motion. Subsequently, Terri moved to dismiss Leslie’s state court proceedings, and the circuit court granted her motion, recognizing the tribal court’s order under the principle of full faith and credit. Leslie appealed this decision.The circuit court concluded that it shared concurrent subject matter jurisdiction with the tribal court over the divorce but deferred to the tribal court’s order, which it believed had obtained valid personal jurisdiction first. The court also found that the tribal court’s order was entitled to full faith and credit, despite Leslie’s arguments to the contrary.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court’s decision. The court held that the circuit court erred in extending full faith and credit to the tribal court’s order. Instead, the court should have applied the principles of comity under SDCL 1-1-25, which requires clear and convincing evidence that the tribal court had proper jurisdiction and that the order was obtained through a fair process. The Supreme Court found that the tribal court lacked both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over Leslie, a non-Indian, and that the tribal court’s order did not meet the requirements for comity. Consequently, the tribal court’s order was not enforceable, and the circuit court’s dismissal of Leslie’s divorce action was reversed. View "Torgerson v. Torgerson" on Justia Law

Kevin Jucht and Nathan Schulz are neighboring farmers. Jucht sued Schulz, alleging that Schulz's chemical spray drifted onto Jucht's property, damaging his soybeans. Jucht reported the incident to the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) and subsequently filed a lawsuit against Schulz for negligence, strict liability, trespass, and nuisance, seeking actual and punitive damages. Schulz moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Jucht failed to provide the statutory notice required under SDCL 38-21-46.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, McCook County, granted Schulz's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that Jucht's failure to provide the notice required by SDCL 38-21-46 barred him from seeking recovery for the alleged damages. Jucht appealed the decision, arguing that the lack of notice should not bar his cause of action.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court's decision. The Supreme Court held that while SDCL 38-21-46 requires a person claiming damages from pesticide use to notify the applicator, failure to provide such notice does not automatically bar the claimant from bringing their claim. Instead, a claimant is barred from seeking recovery under SDCL 38-21-47 only if they fail to allow the applicator to inspect the alleged damage. The court emphasized that the purpose of the notice is to enable timely inspection by the applicator. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the nature and timing of the notice Schulz received and whether he was given the opportunity to inspect the damage. View "Jucht v. Schulz" on Justia Law

FDJ, LLC, Richard Flugge, and LeAnn Julius (Plaintiffs) sued Ross Determan, alleging he breached a covenant not to compete after selling his accounting practice to them. Determan counterclaimed, asserting the LLC failed to make required payments under their purchase agreement. The circuit court found the LLC breached the agreement by not making payments, which voided Determan's non-compete obligation. The court awarded Determan $106,972.36 and held Plaintiffs jointly and severally liable.The circuit court determined that the LLC failed to make payments to Determan after May 2018, which constituted a material breach of the purchase agreement. This breach relieved Determan of his obligations under the non-compete clause. The court found that Determan resumed working for former clients only after the LLC stopped payments, and Plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to justify withholding payments for alleged expenses.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment against the LLC but reversed the imposition of joint and several liability against Flugge and Julius individually. The court held that the purchase agreement explicitly stated the LLC was responsible for payments to Determan, and there was no basis to hold Flugge and Julius personally liable. The court also noted that Determan did not allege facts to justify disregarding the corporate entity, and the circuit court did not provide findings to support such a decision. Thus, the judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "FDJ, LLC v. Determan" on Justia Law

Steven and Jennifer Condron were granted a divorce in September 2019. The divorce decree included a division of assets and ordered Steven to pay Jennifer a combination of permanent and rehabilitative alimony. Steven was also required to pay $3,218 per month in child support. Three years later, Steven petitioned to modify the child support, arguing that the alimony payments should be considered in the child support calculation. The child support referee declined to include the alimony payments in Jennifer’s income and refused to exclude them from Steven’s income, treating the payments as part of the property division rather than alimony. The circuit court adopted the referee’s findings and conclusions.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, South Dakota, initially handled the case. The court found that Steven’s gross annual income exceeded $1,000,000, while Jennifer had no income. The court ordered Steven to pay Jennifer $15,000 per month in alimony for four years, followed by $11,000 per month in permanent alimony. Steven later filed a petition to modify child support due to a significant reduction in his income after being terminated from his job. The child support referee found Steven’s new gross monthly income to be approximately $45,639.42 and Jennifer’s income to be $1,638. Despite these findings, the referee treated the alimony payments as part of the property division and did not adjust the parties’ incomes for child support purposes. The circuit court upheld this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the monthly payments were indeed alimony and not part of the property division. The court noted that the payments were consistently referred to as alimony and were terminable upon significant life events, such as death or remarriage, which is characteristic of alimony. The court reversed the circuit court’s decision and remanded the case for recalculating child support, including the alimony payments in Jennifer’s income and excluding them from Steven’s income. View "Condron v. Condron" on Justia Law

Dakota Bail Bonds (DBB) posted bonds for two criminal defendants who violated their conditions of release but did not fail to appear in court. The circuit court forfeited the bonds, interpreting SDCL 23A-43-21 as requiring forfeiture for any material breach of release conditions. DBB requested the forfeiture be set aside under SDCL 23A-43-22, arguing their surety only guaranteed court appearances, not compliance with all conditions of release. The circuit court denied this request and entered orders forfeiting the bonds.The circuit court, part of the Second Judicial Circuit in Lincoln County, South Dakota, determined that the statutory language did not distinguish between types of bonds and required forfeiture for any breach of release conditions. The court also declined to set aside the forfeiture, reasoning that justice did not warrant such action merely because the defendants complied with court appearance requirements but violated other conditions. Consequently, the court entered judgments of default against DBB.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the surety bond's language. The Supreme Court found that DBB's surety bond explicitly guaranteed only the defendants' court appearances, not compliance with all conditions of release. Since the defendants did not fail to appear in court, there was no violation of the condition guaranteed by DBB. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court should have set aside the forfeiture under SDCL 23A-43-22 and vacated the judgment of default against DBB. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to vacate the judgment of default. View "State v. Dakota Bail Bonds" on Justia Law

The City of Custer applied for a permit from the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) to discharge treated wastewater into French Creek as part of an upgrade to its wastewater treatment facility. Preserve French Creek, Inc. (Preserve), a group of local citizens, opposed this discharge. Two years after the permit was issued, a Custer County ordinance was passed by citizen initiative, declaring the discharge of treated water into French Creek a nuisance. Preserve demanded the City cease construction based on the new ordinance, but the City did not comply. Preserve then sought mandamus relief to enforce the ordinance, which the circuit court denied.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Custer County found that the ordinance conflicted with state law, specifically SDCL 21-10-2, which states that actions done under the express authority of a statute cannot be deemed a nuisance. The court concluded that the City’s actions, authorized by the DANR permit, could not be considered a nuisance. The court also rejected Preserve’s estoppel argument, stating that the City and County had no duty to enforce an ordinance that conflicted with state law.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The court held that the ordinance was preempted by state law because it attempted to declare a nuisance something that state law expressly authorized. The court also found that the City and County were not estopped from asserting the ordinance’s invalidity, as their actions in placing the ordinance on the ballot and canvassing the vote were statutorily required and did not constitute an inconsistent position. Therefore, the writ of mandamus was properly denied. View "Preserve French Creek V. Custer County" on Justia Law

Beau Foote Sr. was convicted of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon and resisting arrest. In September 2017, law enforcement officers attempted to arrest Foote at a trailer home in Fort Pierre due to an outstanding warrant. During the arrest, Foote struggled with the officers, causing a taser to discharge and incapacitate one officer. Foote also attempted to use the taser on another officer, who was protected by a bullet-proof vest. Foote was combative even after being handcuffed.The Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Stanley County, South Dakota, held a jury trial where Foote was found guilty on all charges. Foote appealed his convictions, arguing that a taser is not a dangerous weapon and that he did not intend to cause harm. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed his convictions, citing that a taser is considered a dangerous weapon under state law.Foote then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The habeas court held an evidentiary hearing and denied his petition, but issued a certificate of probable cause for appeal. Foote appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court, arguing that his trial counsel failed to object to the State’s expert disclosures, challenge the experts’ qualifications, and hire a defense expert.The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that Foote’s counsel made strategic decisions that did not constitute ineffective assistance. The court noted that the counsel’s decisions were based on reasonable trial strategy and that Foote failed to demonstrate how these decisions prejudiced the outcome of his trial. The court affirmed the habeas court’s denial of relief. View "Foote v. Young" on Justia Law

Charles Joseph Burkard sued Tami Jo Burkard for divorce in 2012, and they agreed to share joint legal and physical custody of their two children, with Charles paying $1,000 per month in child support. In 2022, their daughter began living full-time with Tami, prompting Tami to seek a modification of child support. The child support referee calculated Charles's new obligation using a hybrid formula, resulting in a monthly payment of $1,465.58. Tami objected, arguing for a different calculation method.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Lincoln County, South Dakota, held a hearing and admitted new testimony from a child support referee, Tom Keller, over Tami's objections. The court ultimately adopted the referee's hybrid formula for calculating child support, despite Tami's argument that it did not align with statutory guidelines and inflated Charles's obligation.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. It found that the circuit court erred in admitting Keller's testimony, as it violated SDCL 25-7A-22, which confines evidence to the record established before the referee. However, this error was deemed non-prejudicial because the circuit court's decision was based on the referee's initial report and recommendation.The Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the referee's child support calculation, as it was within a reasonable range of potential awards. However, due to discrepancies in the parties' stated income and health insurance amounts, the case was remanded for further calculations. The main holding affirmed the child support amount but required recalculations to address income discrepancies. View "Burkard v. Burkard" on Justia Law

In October 2014, while guiding a hunting party on their property, the Olsens' son observed a crop duster spraying herbicide, which allegedly damaged the Olsens' ponderosa pine trees. The Olsens claimed the herbicide caused significant damage and death to the trees. They filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, who argued that expert testimony was required to prove causation. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, leading to the Olsens' appeal.The Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Spink County, South Dakota, reviewed the case. The court found that without expert testimony, a jury would be left to speculate about the cause of the damage to the trees. The court noted that the fields of chemistry, botany, and agronomy were beyond the understanding of a typical layperson. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the Olsens' complaint in its entirety.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the appeal. The court affirmed the circuit court's decision regarding the need for expert testimony to establish causation for the damage to the trees. However, it reversed the summary judgment on the claims of trespass, statutory nuisance, and common law nuisance, noting that these claims do not require proof of damages to survive summary judgment. The court remanded these claims for further proceedings, allowing the Olsens to potentially recover nominal damages. The court affirmed the summary judgment on the claims of promissory estoppel and civil conspiracy due to the lack of evidence on causation for damages. View "Estate of Olsen v. Agtegra Cooperative" on Justia Law