Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Prior to their marriage in 1993, Wife and Husband entered into a pre-marriage agreement (PMA) listing their assets and liabilities. In 2012, Husband sued Wife for divorce in Minnesota. The Minnesota court determined that Butte County, South Dakota, was the proper venue to determine the issues regarding the validity and enforceability of the parties’ PMA. Wife filed a declaratory judgment action against Donald in Butte County requesting a judgment declaring the PMA valid and enforceable and asking the court to construe the rights and interests of the parties under the PMA. The circuit court declared the PMA valid and enforceable and interpreted the PMA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err when it interpreted the PMA to permit tracing of earnings or property through the joint marital account and applied the marital loan concept; (2) the circuit court did not err when it adopted Wife’s expert’s report; and (3) Wife was not entitled to appellate attorney’s fees. View "Charlson v. Charlson" on Justia Law

In 2003, Lester Bronson executed a power of attorney appointing Leslie “Butch” Bronson - his son - as his attorney-in-fact. In 2010, Lester informed his bank that he wished to add Butch as a joint owner on one of Lester’s bank accounts. On the day of the transaction, Butch signed Lester’s name on the required bank form while they were together in the bank employee’s office because Lester was allegedly physically unable to sign his own name. In 2014, Lester died. Lester’s daughters - Gloria Sichmeller and Debra Mills (together, Petitioners) - subsequently brought this action against Butch seeking to recover the account balance and exemplary damages, asserting that by signing Lester’s name Butch had engaged in impermissible self-dealing. The circuit court ruled in favor of Butch, concluding that Butch had acted as “a mere instrument or [amanuensis]” at Lester’s request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that Butch was not exercising his power of attorney when he signed Lester’s name but, rather, was acting as an amanuensis. View "In re Estate of Bronson" on Justia Law

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

Sueellan Kline and her boyfriend, Douglas Strong, a parolee, lived together in a motel room. Parole agent Connie Johnson went to the motel room to obtain a urine sample from Strong. When Strong’s urine field-tested positive to methamphetamine Johnson removed Strong from the room and detained him in the hallway. Johnson then reentered the room and asked Kline if there were drugs or drug paraphernalia in the room. In response, Kline removed a methamphetamine pipe from her purse and handed it to Johnson. The pipe was used to obtain a search warrant for Kline’s urine, which tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. Kline filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was obtained as the result of an illegal search. The circuit court denied the motion. Kline was subsequently convicted of ingestion of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Johnson lawfully reentered the residence and that Kline voluntarily consented to production of the methamphetamine pipe, and therefore, the evidence was not obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. View "State v. Kline" on Justia Law

Dustin Nelson filed an application for a conditional-use permit to construct and operate a concentrated animal-feeding operation in Grant County. The Grant County Board of Adjustment voted to approve the application. Geraldine and Barth Adolph petitioned the circuit court for a writ of certiorari to review the legality of the Board’s decision. The circuit court affirmed. The Adolphs appealed, arguing (1) the Board’s decision was illegal because Nelson’s proposed project violates the Zoning Ordinance for Grant County; and (2) Nelson presented a new waste-disposal plan at the public hearing, denying them an opportunity for meaningful participation. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) although the Board regularly pursued its authority in most respects, it erroneously believed that past environmental violations of a prospective applicant are never relevant in considering whether to approve an application; (2) the Adolphs were not denied due process during the public hearing; and (3) the Board did not exhibit bias requiring a new hearing. View "Adolph v. Grant County Board of Adjustment" on Justia Law

David Knigge entered into an oral employment contract with Robert Knigge, who had cancer and a limited time to live, to manage a grocery store that was owned by Robert and his wife, Lynette. David alleged that the contract included a severance payment if Lynette ended David’s employment after Robert’s death. Robert died five months after entering into the contract. Lynette terminated David’s employment two months after Robert died and refused to pay the severance. David filed suit to enforce the agreement. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Lynnette, ruling that the oral contract was unenforceable under the statute of frauds because it could not be performed within one year. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in ruling that the contract was unenforceable under the statute of frauds and that there were disputes of material fact regarding the existence of the severance term. View "Knigge v. B & L Food Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a controlled substance. The circuit court departed from a presumptive sentence of probation and sentenced Defendant to four years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circumstances enumerated by the circuit court did not justify a departure from the presumptive sentence of probation, as the court failed to identify aggravating factors sufficient to deviate from a presumptive sentence of probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s criminal history and complete disregard for supervised release indicated that the circuit court’s departure from the presumptive sentence of probation was warranted. View "State v. Underwood" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of four counts of rape in the first degree and two counts of sexual contact with a child under sixteen years of age. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination to exclude statements regarding self-harm; (2) the circuit court erred in denying a judgment of acquittal on the two sexual contact counts; (3) the State offered sufficient evidence to convict Defendant; and (4) the circuit court did not impose a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant. Remanded. View "State v. Bausch" on Justia Law

After Keith Mendenhall and Lisa Swanson divorced, Keith brought a claim for slander against Lisa. Lisa counterclaimed for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, slander, and alienation of her daughter’s affection. Before trial, the trial court granted Lisa’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on Keith’s slander claim. The jury subsequently found in favor of Lisa on each of her counterclaims except slander and awarded her $211,710. Keith appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by admitting fourteen exhibits consisting of court documents from prior proceedings. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that the court’s failure to analyze the facts contained in the fourteen exhibits under principles of judicial notice or issue preclusion was error, and the error likely had a substantial influence on the jury’s verdict. View "Mendenhall v. Swanson" on Justia Law