3 N.W.3d 454
S.D.2024Background
- Emily Bialota sought to quiet title on property in Pennington County, South Dakota, acquired via tax deed after purchase of a tax certificate for unpaid property taxes owed by Lakota Lakes, LLC.
- Lakota Lakes, LLC, a Minnesota entity, was administratively terminated in Minnesota and did not have a registered presence in South Dakota.
- Multiple attempts to notify Lakota Lakes at their business and former addresses failed; Bialota ultimately served notice via the Minnesota Secretary of State, acting as agent after reasonable diligence to find the entity failed.
- Pennington County issued the tax deed to Bialota when Lakota Lakes failed to redeem the property within the statutory window; Lakota Lakes later sought to invalidate the deed, claiming improper service.
- The circuit court held for Lakota Lakes, finding the service on the Minnesota Secretary of State did not satisfy South Dakota's requirements for personal service; Bialota appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state's law governs service of process? | Minnesota law should govern agency; South Dakota law governs procedure. | Argues South Dakota law governs service. | Both: South Dakota law governs method, Minnesota law governs agent status. |
| Was service of notice to take tax deed proper? | Service on Minn. Secretary of State valid as registered agent due to entity’s admin. termination. | Not personally served as required under SD law. | Service on Secretary of State is valid under both SD and MN law. |
| Was proof of service sufficient under SD law? | Secretary of State’s acknowledgment and affidavit suffice. | No proof of personal delivery as required by SDCL 15-6-4(d). | SD Supreme Court majority: substantial compliance suffices; dissent disagrees. |
| Is the tax deed to Bialota valid? | Yes, since notice was properly served and Lakota Lakes failed to redeem. | No, service was improper so deed is void. | Deed is valid; reversed and remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Northland Cap. Fin. Servs., LLC v. Robinson, 976 N.W.2d 252 (S.D. 2022) (forum law governs procedure, including service of process).
- Wagner v. Truesdell, 574 N.W.2d 627 (S.D. 1998) (substantial compliance with service requirements can suffice).
- Grajczyk v. Tasca, 717 N.W.2d 624 (S.D. 2006) (party seeking to rely on service bears burden of proving its validity).