Arnoldy v. Mahoney & Finneman
2010 SD 89
| S.D. | 2010Background
- Arnoldys purchased judgments against Finneman and used them to redeem Finneman land; Mahoney bought related judgments and redeemed land; Arnoldys filed a separate declaratory judgment challenging the validity of the confessions of judgment used in the redemption; trial court granted summary judgment for Arnoldys based on documents from counsel’s files under in camera review; defendants appealed arguing privilege protections and lack of standing; court discusses standing, privilege handling, fraud theories, and whether confessions were void for SDCL 21-26-3 and 54-8-1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge confessions of judgments | Arnoldys have real-party-in-interest status and potential injury in redemption. | Arnoldys lack injury and cannot challenge judgments not party to confession. | Arnoldys have standing; declaratory action appropriate. |
| Use of privileged documents for summary judgment | Acuity in camera review procedure violated; privilege not properly handled. | Privilege logs and protective orders valid; in camera review justified. | Trial court erred by not following Acuity; privilege handling improper. |
| Summary judgment for fraud/deceit | Defendants engaged in deceit/fraud under SDCL chs. 20-10, 53-4; misrepresentations and concealment. | No clear, undisputed facts show deceit or fraud; disputes exist. | Summary judgment on fraud/deceit was improper; facts remain disputed. |
| Validity of Kenco and Kroeplin confessions under SDCL 21-26-3 | Confessions lacked concise facts and proper description; debts may have expired or been revived improperly. | Confessions facially adequate; jury should decide underlying facts. | Jury must determine whether confessions meet 21-26-3 requirements. |
| Effect of potential fraud on redemption and standing | If confessions are void, title and redemption rights are affected; Arnoldys’ standing preserved to challenge. | Redemption validity unaffected if confessions valid; standing not necessary. | Issues of fraud and validity require further proceedings; standing recognized. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Great N. Ry. Co., 157 N.W.2d 19 (S.D. 1968) (summary judgment standards; lack of findings not fatal to review)
- Acuity, Inc. v. Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corp., 771 N.W.2d 623 (S.D. 2009) (in camera privilege handling in discovery rulings; require reasons for in camera)
- Kehn v. Hoeksema, 524 N.W.2d 879 (S.D. 1994) (standing based on injury and rights in land; assignee rights)
- Dan Nelson, Auto., Inc. v. Viken, 706 N.W.2d 239 (S.D. 2005) (read statutes together to allow declaratory relief; adequate remedies may coexist)
- Sejnoha v. City of Yankton, 622 N.W.2d 735 (S.D. 2001) (fraud requires misrepresentation of fact; material issues for deceit)