Steven L. Zinter

In Peterson v. Feldmann, Milton Peterson sued his sisters in South Dakota to invalidate an amendment to his mother's living trust, alleging it was executed under undue influence while she lived in Missouri. The trust amendment eliminated Peterson's option to purchase family farm property at appraised value and shifted it to his sisters at assessed value, along with other changes to trustees and a forfeiture clause. The circuit court dismissed the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens after weighing the Gilbert factors, finding Missouri an available and more convenient forum because the trustor resided there, relevant witnesses and evidence of undue influence were located there, and some trust property was situated there. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in balancing private and public interest factors, including the strong presumption favoring the plaintiff's choice of forum, which was overcome here by the practical considerations favoring Missouri.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over whether a conservator appointed for Evelyn E. Didier could assume trustee roles in two family trusts despite specific successor-trustee provisions naming others upon her incapacity. The circuit court granted the conservator authority to act as trustee in both the Evelyn Trust and the Nicholas Trust. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the decision for the Evelyn Trust, reasoning that Evelyn, as trustor, had the power to amend the successor clause, but reversed for the Nicholas Trust because its successor provisions conflicted and Evelyn lacked authority as co-trustee to alter them. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

family lawproperty

This case involved NattyMac Capital LLC, a purchaser of mortgage loans, seeking a declaratory judgment to invalidate a written satisfaction of mortgage on property in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, along with negligence claims against a title company. The mortgage had been originated by ACT Mortgage Capital, sold to NattyMac, and serviced by ACT under an agreement making ACT an independent contractor and agent; after payoff at a subsequent closing, ACT's certifying officer (authorized by MERS, the named mortgagee) executed and delivered the satisfaction to the title company. The circuit court granted summary judgment against NattyMac on all claims. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that ACT had authority as MERS's agent to execute the satisfaction, that the payoff automatically extinguished the mortgage lien irrespective of any signature or identification issues in the document, and that NattyMac had waived or lacked a viable negligence claim against the title company because the mortgage was already satisfied by payment.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved Edward Thurman seeking additional workers' compensation benefits from his employer Zandstra Construction and its insurer for a 1999 work-related injury. The employer had made its last benefit payment in June 2004, but Thurman did not petition the Department of Labor until June 2008 after receiving a denial letter in May 2008. The Department and circuit court granted summary judgment to the employer, ruling the claim untimely. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that SDCL 62-7-35.1's three-year statute of limitations from the date of the last payment applied and barred the claim, and that the later denial letter did not trigger a new two-year period under SDCL 62-7-35 because the three-year period had already expired.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a chiropractic clinic that obtained assignments of proceeds from two patients' personal injury claims against a driver insured by De Smet Insurance Company. After receiving notice of the assignments, De Smet settled the claims directly with the patients without paying the clinic for unpaid services, leading the clinic to sue the insurer to enforce the assignments. The magistrate and circuit courts ruled the assignments enforceable, but the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the assignments were invalid. The court's core reasoning centered on the assignments' implication of common-law doctrines against maintenance and champerty, their tendency to discourage settlements amid disputes over treatment costs, and the added burdens they placed on insurers in prioritizing payments.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Alvine Family Limited Partnership sued neighboring landowner James Hagemann, his cattle operation Hagemann Red Angus, and Floyd Demaray for negligence, nuisance, and trespass, alleging that runoff of cattle manure from a winter confinement area on the defendants' uphill property flowed through a culvert into Alvine's stock dams, causing aquatic plant growth and a fish kill. After a jury returned a defense verdict, Alvine moved for judgment as a matter of law on the trespass claim, arguing that an intentional physical intrusion alone establishes trespass regardless of harm; the circuit court denied the motion. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Alvine had not challenged the jury instruction requiring proof of causally related harm in his post-trial motions, that instruction became the law of the case, and the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the defendants' operation was not a substantial factor causing harm to Alvine's property.

propertytorts & liabilityenvironment

Susan Johnson sued Matthew J. Batchelder Co., Inc. after she tripped and fell on a stairway at the company's music store, alleging the defendant failed to keep the premises reasonably safe due to unsecured and uneven plastic carpet runners. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the grounds that Johnson could not specify the exact cause of her fall in her deposition testimony. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that Johnson's post-deposition affidavits could be considered because they explained ambiguities in her prior testimony and introduced new facts about the runners creating a trip hazard. The court reasoned that these materials raised genuine issues of material fact on breach of duty, which is a question for the jury rather than resolution on summary judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a dispute over insurance coverage for injuries sustained in an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) accident. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that its recreational vehicle policy did not provide medical payments or liability coverage for the incident involving minors Shane and Jozette Gertsema, as Shane lacked permission from the named insureds, the Hansons. The circuit court granted summary judgment to State Farm, finding no implied permission due to violations of the Hansons' rules for ATV use. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that disputed issues of material fact existed regarding implied permission based on the course of conduct, permissions from the Hansons' children, and the existence and enforcement of any rules.

torts & liabilityprocedure

A pedestrian and his wife sued the abutting building owner after the pedestrian was injured when a concrete-filled metal grate covering an abandoned sidewalk excavation collapsed. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the owner, concluding that the city, which owned the sidewalk and had directed its reconstruction to city specifications, owed the duty of care. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that an excavation and grate constitute a special use of the public sidewalk. Because the owner’s predecessors created the excavation and the current owner maintained it by allowing the grate to remain, the owner owes a concurrent duty of due care to the public with respect to that special use, independent of any municipal duties.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case arose from a personal injury lawsuit in which plaintiff Jeanine Corcoran sought damages from defendant David McCarthy and his employer for chronic pain, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life following a car accident. After a jury awarded substantial damages, McCarthy discovered that Corcoran had not disclosed or produced requested medical records from 2000 and 2006 relating to her preexisting psychological treatment for depression, anxiety, and related issues. The circuit court initially granted McCarthy's motion for relief from the judgment and ordered a new trial on damages but later vacated that order. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that Corcoran's nondisclosure constituted misconduct under SDCL 15-6-60(b)(3) because it substantially interfered with McCarthy's ability to prepare and present a defense on the key issues of damages. The court therefore remanded for reinstatement of the order granting a new trial on damages.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned whether the City of Deadwood could require the M.R. Gustafson Family Trust to obtain review and a permit from the local Historic Preservation Commission before demolishing the Sinclair Station, a building listed on the national and state registers of historic places but not locally designated under separate statutes. The circuit court granted declaratory relief allowing demolition without HPC review. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that SDCL 1-19B-62 independently authorizes the city ordinance mandating HPC review for undertakings affecting properties on the national or state registers. The court reasoned that this statute addresses a distinct purpose from the local designation procedures in SDCL 1-19B-20 through 24 and applies by its plain terms to registered historic properties.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Littlebrave, a South Dakota highway patrol trooper stopped the defendant's vehicle for a lane violation on Interstate 90 and, during the stop, developed suspicions from the vehicle's rental status, a strong chemical odor, the occupants' nervousness, and inconsistent accounts of their travel plans from Washington to New York. After questioning both the driver and passenger, the trooper asked about illegal drugs; the defendant admitted to possessing marijuana, leading to a canine search that uncovered several pounds of the substance. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, claiming the trooper unconstitutionally prolonged the traffic stop beyond its original purpose in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The circuit court denied the motion, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trooper had developed reasonable suspicion through articulable facts—including the conflicting stories and other indicators—to justify extending the detention for limited drug-related questions. The court concluded that, under the totality of circumstances, the brief additional questioning did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and the admission provided probable cause for the subsequent search.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Muhm, Thomas Muhm was convicted on five counts including attempted first-degree rape, first-degree rape, two counts of sexual contact with a child under sixteen, and criminal pedophilia, based on allegations of repeated sexual abuse of two boys over several years during weekend visits. Muhm appealed, claiming the charges were multiplicitous and duplicitous in violation of due process and double jeopardy, that the State failed to provide adequate notice of an expert witness's report and opinions, and that newly discovered evidence warranted a new trial. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, reasoning that the indictment properly charged distinct offenses, any notice issue regarding the expert was not preserved or was harmless, and the post-trial evidence from one victim's stepbrother was merely cumulative, impeaching, and unlikely to result in acquittal given its double-edged nature and the existing impeachment of the victims' testimony. The court applied standards of review for multiplicity, evidentiary notice, and new-trial motions without finding abuse of discretion by the trial court.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether a promissory note for $33,000 executed by Gerald Neve in favor of the Donald L. Davis Living Trust was enforceable. A jury determined that repayment of a $1,500 gambling debt formed part of the consideration for the note, leading the trial court to initially void the note under a South Dakota statute prohibiting enforcement of notes given in full or partial consideration of gambling debts. The trial court later granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the Davis Trust. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude the gambling debt was part of the consideration, and remanded for reinstatement of the jury verdict. The core reasoning focused on Neve's testimony about the loan terms and use of proceeds, which supported the jury's finding under the applicable statute.

business & regulatory

The case involved a juvenile delinquency proceeding in which M.D.D. admitted to a petition alleging simple assault after injuring another person while driving. The circuit court placed her on probation and ordered restitution to Medicaid for the victim's medical expenses, which M.D.D. appealed on the grounds that juvenile statutes did not authorize payments to third-party payers. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the restitution order, holding that SDCL 26-8B-6(4) broadly permits courts to order restitution for medical expenses in juvenile cases without restricting the recipients. The court reasoned that the juvenile restitution provision uses unqualified language unlike the more limited criminal restitution statutes, which do not apply to delinquency proceedings, and that arguments about hardship were not preserved for appeal.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

James Big Crow was charged with incestuous sexual contact with his minor niece. Over his objection, the circuit court admitted evidence of similar sexual contact involving two other nieces to prove a common plan or scheme under SDCL 19-12-5 (Rule 404(b)). The jury convicted Big Crow, and he appealed the admission of the other-acts evidence and other issues. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the other acts were relevant, not too remote in time, and that their probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, consistent with existing precedent on such evidence in sexual-abuse prosecutions. The court also held that Big Crow had waived his subpoena challenge by failing to raise it at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved breach of contract claims by two family-owned partnerships, Casey Ranch Limited Partnership and Milliron Bison Company, against Pauline Casey for unpaid amounts under oral leases allowing her to graze cattle on partnership property. The circuit court dismissed the suit, ruling that MBC lacked authority because the action was outside the ordinary course of business and required unanimous partner consent, and that CRLP lacked authority because one of its two general partners had not consented. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that enforcing lease obligations for property use fell within MBC's ordinary business and thus needed only a majority vote under the partnership agreement. For CRLP, the court found that the non-consenting general partner had been removed, so his approval was unnecessary. The decision rested on the partnerships' governing documents and the nature of the underlying lease transactions.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In State v. Lemler, a probationer appealed the revocation of his probation after a SCRAM alcohol monitoring bracelet detected three drinking events in violation of his no-alcohol condition. The circuit court qualified the State's expert, admitted the bracelet data under the Daubert standard for scientific evidence, and found it reasonably satisfied that Lemler had consumed alcohol. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that transdermal alcohol detection is a generally accepted method, the bracelet's methodology was reliable despite potential variables like interferants or environmental factors, and the evidence supported the violation finding. The court noted that credibility and weight of conflicting expert testimony were for the trial court to resolve.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Gaylen Klutman, a minor, who suffered a severe knee injury during an unsupervised touch football game at a Sioux Falls Storm promotional event, allegedly caused by his foot catching under improperly installed synthetic turf with gaps and Velcro seams. Klutman and his family sued the team and arena for negligence in the turf's installation, inspection, and maintenance, and a jury awarded $500,000 in damages. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the verdict, holding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings, including the absence of warnings or supervision, the turf's known tendency to gap, lack of safety protocols, and direct testimony that the foot was caught under the turf. The court also upheld the denial of the team's motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence and other grounds, applying deferential standards of review to the trial court's decisions.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved Daphne Wright's convictions for premeditated murder, felony murder, and aggravated kidnapping of Darlene VanderGiesen, whom Wright killed and dismembered out of jealousy over her girlfriend's friendship with the victim. Wright appealed, raising issues including the admissibility of her statements to police without Miranda warnings, accommodations for her hearing impairment at trial, minority representation in the jury pool, admission of prior acts evidence, sufficiency of the evidence, and double jeopardy for the kidnapping and felony murder convictions. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the statements were voluntary since Wright was not in custody, proper trial accommodations were made, sufficient evidence supported premeditation and the underlying kidnapping, and other claims were either waived or lacked merit.

criminal lawprocedure