Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The Finnemans owned 17,000 acres of farmland that they deeded to Rock Creek Farms (RCF). RCF funded a series of redemptions of the property, and the Arnoldys purchased existing judgments on the property. Rabo Agrifinance and Rabo AgServices (Rabo) subsequently initiated foreclosure proceedings against the Finnemans, RCF, and all parties who had an interest in the land. The trial court entered a judgment and decree of foreclosure in the Rabo foreclosure proceedings and adjudged RCF as having the final owner's right of redemption as to the entirety of the property. The Arnoldys sought to have the judgment and decree of foreclosure set aside by filing a motion for relief pursuant to S.D. Codified Laws 15-6-60(b). On May 26, the trial court granted the motion and vacated the portion of the judgment recognizing RCF's final redemption rights. RCF and the Finnemans sought relief from the May 26 order by filing separate motions pursuant to Rule 60(b). The trial court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court judge correctly determined that a Rule 60(b) motion was not appropriate and denied relief in this case. View "Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Rock Creek Farms" on Justia Law

Thomas Konrad accepted a loan from Bob Law upon the advice of attorney Douglas Kettering. Law and Kettering had been partners in at least one of Law's business ventures and had an attorney-client relationship. Thomas's parents (the Konrads) provided their land as collateral for Thomas's loan. Thomas later defaulted on the note. Seven months after Kettering passed away, Law brought suit to enforce the note and mortgage against Thomas and the Konrads. Law settled with Thomas and the Konrads. Law then sought to recover from the Kettering Estate the amounts outstanding on the note, claiming that Kettering's acts - including his conflict of interest with Law and his alleged fraudulent inducement of the Konrads into signing the note and mortgage - voided the note and mortgage, and therefore, the Estate was liable to Law for the interest due on the note. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the contract between Law and Thomas did not contravene public policy because it was drafted by an attorney who failed to disclose a conflicting attorney-client relationship; and (2) the theory that Kettering fraudulently induced the Konrads into signing the note and mortgage rested on mere speculation. View "Law Capital, Inc. v. Kettering" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a property owner, sought to expand the buildings on his property and, accordingly, asked the City to rezone a portion of his property zoned within the Flood Hazard Zoning District. The City denied the request along with Plaintiff's building permits because the proposed expansion extended to a portion of Plaintiff's property zoned within the Flood Hazard Zoning District. After unsuccessfully appealing to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the circuit court, which included a writ of certiorari, a request for declaratory judgment, a writ of mandamus, a civil rights claim, and a state constitutional claim. While the suit was pending, the City partially granted Plaintiff's rezone request. The circuit court subsequently denied Plaintiff's writ of certiorari and granted summary judgment in favor of the City on the remainder of Plaintiff's claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing Plaintiff's writ of certiorari and granting summary judgment in favor of the City on Plaintiff's remaining claims. View "Parris v. City of Rapid City" on Justia Law

Appellees John Apland and others (collectively, Apland) and the Butte County Director of Equalization (Director) were involved in a dispute over the method Director used to calculate the value of Apland's rangeland property for tax purposes. In Apland I, the Supreme Court held that Director failed to comply with the Constitutional requirements of equality and uniformity and remanded with direction to Director to re-determine the property values after giving appropriate consideration and value to appurtenant and nontransferable water rights. On remand, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Apland, concluding that Director failed to comply with the directives in Apland I. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that Director properly executed the directives of Apland I but that the record did not allow the Court to determine whether Director's method of valuation of Apland's property resulted in an equal and uniform assessment. View "Apland v. Bd. of Equalization for Butte County" on Justia Law

Upon Marcus Degen's purchase of a home, Marcus purchased a homeowner's insurance policy with Hanson Farm Mutual Insurance Company of South Dakota (HFMIC). Marcus, Tina Sellers, and Tina's two daughters moved into the house. One evening, while Marcus was leveling dirt on the property with a skid loader, Marcus hit and killed one of the girls, Adrianna. Tina pursued a wrongful death action against Marcus a year later. HFMIC filed a declaratory judgment action asking the trial court to determine whether it had an obligation to indemnify or defend Marcus in the underlying wrongful death action. The trial court ruled in favor of HFMIC, determining that Adrianna was in Marcus's care and was therefore excluded from coverage under a household exclusion contained in the policy. Both Tina, as the personal representative of her daughter's estate, and Marcus appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court correctly concluded that the phrase "in your care" was unambiguous and in concluding that Adrianna was in Marcus's care; and (2) because she was in Marcus's care, Adrianna was excluded from coverage under the household exclusion contained in the policy. View "Hanson Farm Mut. Ins. Co. of S.D. v. Degen" on Justia Law

Defendants owned three lots in the Eagle Crest subdivision adjacent to the Eagle Ridge Estates (Eagle Ridge) subdivision. Defendants' predecessor in title obtained a private access easement from the prior owners of Eagle Ridge, which allowed Defendants to access their property in Eagle Crest by way of roads running through Eagle Ridge. In exchange, the grantee of the easement agreed to pay an annual general road assessment for each lot. The Eagle Ridge Homeowners Association (Association) brought suit against Defendants for their failure to pay general assessments for three assessment years. Defendants argued that the Association only had authority to assess general road assessments against them and not general assessments. Ultimately, the trial court found in favor of the Association and awarded attorney fees, finding that the expenditures made by the Association were associated with roads. The Supreme Court affirmed on all issues with the exception of the Association's request for certain attorney fees because of contradictory findings and conclusions by the trial court. Remanded. View "Eagle Ridge Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Anderson" on Justia Law

In 1994, Plaintiff granted a drainage easement to Pennington County on land he owned. In 1996, silt began to accumulate near the bottom of the canyon on part of Plaintiff's land due to the County's repair of a section of road abutting Plaintiff's land. In 2010, Plaintiff filed suit against the County for nuisance, constructive taking, trespass, and unlawful taking. The trial court granted summary judgment for the County, determining that there was no continuing tort and that the statute of limitations had run. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for the County, as the County's actions did not constitute a continuing tort, and thus, Plaintiff's action was untimely filed. View "Brandt v. County of Pennington" on Justia Law

Curley Haisch and his wife Rose owned Mulehead Ranch. Joe Duling was the Haisches' financial advisor as well as a realtor and broker. When Curley was ninety years old, he decided to sell the ranch and signed a listing agreement with Joe. Approximately one year later, Joe suggested that Curley and Rose form a charitable remainder trust (Trust) into which the ranch and chattels could be gifted. Curley and Rose executed the Trust, to which the Ranch was transferred. The Trustee then sold the Ranch to Joe and Lynne Duling. Later, it was discovered that the Trust contained multiple defects. The Trustee brought suit against the Dulings, their businesses, and the Mulehead Ranch on behalf of the Trust and the Haisches. The complaint alleged negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duties. A jury found in favor of the Trust awarded Plaintiffs $1,568,200, including punitive damages. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded for a new trial on damages, holding (1) the circuit court erred in failing to give a proper instruction on the statutes of limitation applicable to Plaintiffs' claims for future tax consequences related to the defects in the Trust; and (2) the court did not err in the remainder of its judgment. View "Bailey v. Duling" on Justia Law

The City of Rapid City applied a deicer to the streets adjacent to property owned by the Ruperts. The Ruperts sued the City, claiming that the deicer ran onto their property and destroyed several pine trees. The trial court granted the Ruperts' motion for summary judgment on their inverse condemnation claim, and a jury awarded the Ruperts $126,530 to compensate them for the damage to their property. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Ruperts on their inverse condemnation claim, but the measure of damages used at trial for purposes of calculating the just compensation award was erroneous; (2) the trial court properly denied the Ruperts' request for attorney fees; and (3) the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City on the Ruperts' claims of negligence and trespass did not constitute reversible error. Remanded for a new trial on damages. View "Rupert v. City of Rapid City" on Justia Law

In 1967, Raymond and Margaret Becker's eight child inherited an undivided one-eighth interest in patented fee land located within the boundaries of the Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation. None of the Beckers were Indians. In 2006, one of the Becker children sold her interest to Patrick and Carletta Aberle. Patrick was a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and Carletta was a non-Indian. Due to certain conveyances, Patrick and Carletta each owned an undivided one-sixteenth interest in the property. The Becker children later commenced this action seeking a sale of the entire property. The Aberles counterclaimed for partition. Patrick also contended that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute because he was a member of the Tribe, which had jurisdiction. The circuit court ordered a sale of the entire property, concluding that state jurisdiction did not infringe upon tribal sovereignty. In considering the state-tribal jurisdiction issue, the Supreme Court noted that a determination of the disputed land's alienability was necessary. The Court then remanded the matter to the circuit court to reconsider the jurisdiction question after further development of a factual record and consideration of land alienation cases. View "McGuire v. Aberle" on Justia Law