Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Claimant Cynthia Auck appealed the district courtâs order that found Respondent Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) acted with substantial justification when it refused to pay her benefits on the death of her husband. By this refusal, Ms. Auck was precluded from seeking attorneyâs fees. The Supreme Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding for Respondent. The Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision, and dismissed Ms. Auckâs claim for attorneyâs fees.

Defendant-Appellant Randall Peterson appealed the district court order that denied his motion for reconsideration of a judgment entered against him for credit card debt owed to Plaintiff-Appellee Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. (Citibank). Citibank sued Defendant alleging he failed to pay his bill. Defendant filed what he called a âspecial appearanceâ only to ask that the complaint be dismissed. The district court denied Defendantâs motion to dismiss. Subsequently Defendant filed a letter he had sent to the lawyer disciplinary board to the district court. The district court eventually entered a default judgment in favor of Citibank, and ordered Defendant to pay his bill. On appeal, Defendant argued that the two documents (the âspecial appearanceâ and the letter to the disciplinary board) were âbrush offsâ by the court, and constituted an abuse of discretion by the court in entering the default against him. The Supreme Court noted many of the technical problems with Defendantâs submissions to the lower court. Even in his application for appeal, Defendant addressed no errors at the lower court, and raised no real issues for the Courtâs review. Subsequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Defendant Bruce Harris appealed a judgment that awarded Plaintiff Linda Smestad over $30,000 for loans she claimed she made to Harris during an eighteen-month business and personal relationship. Harris operated a subchapter-S corporation in which he was the sole shareholder. Smestad had lived with Harris, and wrote a series of checks to Harris, his company, and to others on behalf of Harris and his company. When the relationship ended, Smestad filed suit against Harris to be reimbursed for the checks she wrote on his behalf. Harris represented himself on appeal, and listed 35 one-sentence âissuesâ that were not developed into comprehensible legal arguments. The Supreme Court acknowledged that Mr. Harris did not articulate himself to allow the district court to lend credence to his claims. On review of the record, the Supreme Court reversed only one part of the district courtâs decision relating to Harrisâ âissues.â The Court found that the $30,000 was an oral agreement, and that amount was unenforceable under the statute of frauds. The Court affirmed the lower courtâs judgment in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings.