Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of The Genevieve J. Parmely Revocable Trust asking the court to determine that an option agreement made with Brad Magness was invalid because of the absence of consideration, holding that the circuit court erred.In denying summary judgment for Magness and in granting the Trust's second motion for summary judgment the circuit court determined that the written option agreements at issue were not supported by independent consideration and were null and void. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Trust failed to rebut the presumption of consideration established by S.D. Codified Laws 53-6-3. View "Genevieve J. Parmely Revocable Trust v. Magness" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of Kevin Costner in this breach of contract case and dismissing the claims brought by Peggy Detmers, holding that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment for Costner.Costner commissioned Detmers to create sculptures of buffalo and Lakota warriors to display at a luxury resort called The Dunbar that Costner planned to build on his property. A court later found that the parties had agreed to permanently display the sculptures at Tatanka, another project Costner developed. In 2021, Detmers sued Costner again, alleging that Costner's online real estate listing for the Tatanka property constituted an anticipatory breach of the agreement permanently to display the sculptures at Tatanka. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Costner. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) erred in holding that Detmers' claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata; (2) erred in its conclusion that Costner had no remaining obligation under the agreement after the parties agreed to display the sculptures at Tatanka; and (3) properly denied Detmers' motion for summary judgment on her claim for anticipatory repudiation by Costner. View "Detmers v. Costner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court in this appeal concerning damage caused to an airplane owned by Plaintiff, holding that this Court had jurisdiction and that there was no error in the damages award and decision to award prejudgment interest.In the first appeal in this negligence case the Supreme Court remanded the case for a new trial on the limited issue of damages on the ground that the circuit court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury on damages. On remand, the court awarded Plaintiff $131,735 in damages, prejudgment interest, and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this Court had appellate jurisdiction; (2) the circuit court did not err in the method it chose to calculate Plaintiff's damages; and (3) the circuit court did not err in awarding prejudgment interest. View "Wright v. Temple" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in this action to foreclose a materialmen's lien to recover for material and labor Ed Suvada expended in renovating a cabin for George and Christine Muller, holding that their was no error.Suvada brought this action to foreclose his materialmen's lien on the Muller property and also alleged breach of contract. The Mullers counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract and fraud. A jury awarded Suvada damages on his materialmen's lien claim and in favor of the Mullers on both of their claims but awarded damages only on the breach of contract claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion. View "Suvada v. Muller" on Justia Law

In this action concerning a disputed agreement between between Kenneth and Rebecca Goens and Lynn VanSloten for the sale of an empty lot, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction under S.D. Codified Laws 15-26A-3, holding that the underlying interlocutory judgment was not a final judgment under S.D. Codified Laws 15-6-54(b) and was therefore not appealable.Kenneth delivered the purchase agreement at issue and VanSloten's earnest money check to FDT, LLC with the intention that FDT act as the closing agent for the property sale. When a dispute arose regarding the earnest money check and purchase agreement the Goenses filed a complaint against FDT and VanSloten. VanSloten asserted a counterclaim against the Goenses. The circuit court granted FDT's motion for summary judgment against the Goenses, but the order did not resolve the remaining claims or contain any certification under S.D. Codified Laws 15-6-54(b). The Goenses appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because active claims remained in this action at the time of appeal and no Rule 54(b) certification was made, this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction under S.D. Codified Laws 15-26A-3. View "Goens v. FDT, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court determining that J. Clancy, Inc. had performed under a contract for renovations of a Spearfish hotel and that Khan Comfort, LLC had breached the contract by failing timely to make payments, holding that there was no error.J. Clancy brought this action alleging claims for nonpayment under a series of implied-in-fact contracts. Following a trial, the circuit court awarded Khan a judgment against J. Clancy for overpayment. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the parties had entered into an express contract for the renovations. After a remand, the circuit court found that J. Clancy had fully performed under the terms of the contract and that Khan had breached the contract. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court's actions on remand were within the parameters of its decision-making authority; (2) the circuit court did not err in finding on remand that J. Clancy had fully performed; and (3) the record supported the court's findings of fact on damages. View "J. Clancy, Inc. v. Khan Comfort, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court in favor of Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company in this insurance dispute, holding that the circuit court improperly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.An agent of Kaiser Trucking was in an automobile accident with Liberty Mutual's insured. The circuit court granted default judgment for Kaiser Trucking and its agent. After the judgments were returned unsatisfied, Kaiser and its agent brought this action against Liberty Mutual seeking indemnification of the judgments against its insured. Liberty Mutual filed a motion to dismiss under S.D. Codified Laws 15-6-12(b)(5), arguing that Plaintiffs failed to plead a condition precedent to coverage under the policy. The circuit court agreed and dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Kaiser Trucking, Inc. was not required to plea satisfaction of conditions precedent in the relevant insurance policy sufficiently to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and avoid a Rule 12(b)(5) dismissal of its complaint. View "Kaiser Trucking, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court in this action brought by Plaintiff to determine custody, child support, and shared parenting of the parties' child and on Defendant's counterclaim for breach of an implied contract and unjust enrichment, holding that the circuit court erred in part.In his counterclaim, Defendant argued that the parties had impliedly agreed that they would jointly own the marital home and that he would receive equity in the home acquired through his financial contributions toward the home mortgage. In response, Plaintiff claimed that she owned the home and that Defendant simply paid her rent while living there. The circuit court denied Defendant's claims, concluded that the parties' relationship was that of a landlord and tenant and awarded back rent, and determined shared child support and parenting issues. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) erred when it awarded Plaintiff back rent; (2) erred in determining the amount of back child support due; and (3) did not otherwise err or abuse its discretion. View "Murphey v. Pearson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court denying the cross-motions for summary judgment filed by the parties in this case, holding that summary judgment should have been granted to Rema Kolda as a matter of law on counts one, two, and four.DT-Trak Consulting, Inc., a medical consulting firm and independent contractor, sued Kolda, its former employee, for alleged violations of multiple provisions of a non-complete agreement. Kolda counterclaimed for barratry. Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) Kolda was not in violation of the non-compete provision of the agreement, and summary judgment should have been granted on this count; and (2) Kolda was entitled to summary judgment on count four, which alleged the existence of a trade secret, and count one, which alleged the existence of a trade secret in addition to proprietary information and "confidential information." View "Dt-Trak Consulting, Inc. v. Kolda" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court determining that Denise Schipke-Smeenk was not entitled to specific performance of an agreement she made with her husband that neither party would revoke their specific wills without the other's consent, holding that the circuit court erred in determining that the claim was not timely or properly presented.Denise and Neil Smeenk executed mutual wills in 2017 and the agreement at issue. In 2019, Neil executed a new will without Denise's consent. After Neil died, the circuit court appointed Denise as personal representative of Neil's estate and ordered the 2019 will to be probated. The circuit court denied Denise's motion seeking specific performance of the agreement, determining that the motion was not properly presented as a creditor claim and was untimely and that Denise was not entitled to specific performance. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) erred in determining that the claim was not timely and properly presented; but (2) correctly ruled that Denise was not entitled to specific performance. View "In re Estate of Smeenk" on Justia Law