932 N.W.2d 916
S.D.2019Background
- Belle Fourche City Council adopted a resolution on Aug 1, 2016 approving a special assessment roll for nuisance abatement that included a $1,374.45 assessment against 903 Edmonds Street (then owned by Bowman).
- Resolution stated unpaid assessments would be certified/filed with the county auditor by Sept 30, 2016 and collected thereafter; the assessment notice was published and Bowman did not appeal within the 20-day statutory window.
- Bingham Farms Trust purchased the property on Jan 17, 2017 and later discovered a special assessment lien; the title commitment before purchase did not show the lien, and the full policy (showing the lien) was apparently delivered after the purchase.
- Bingham sued the City alleging slander of title, sought declaratory and quiet-title relief, and requested removal of the lien; the City filed a Rule 12(b)(1) motion arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (no timely appeal) and alternatively sought summary judgment and attorney fees.
- The record shows the City’s finance officer certified the assessment roll was filed with the county treasurer on Sept 29, 2017—over nine months after Bingham’s purchase and one year after the date stated in the Resolution; the City did not dispute the untimely filing.
- The circuit court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (viewing Bingham’s suit as an untimely collateral attack on the assessment) but denied the City’s request for attorney fees; the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, affirmed denial of fees, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Bingham’s claims | Bingham: its suit challenges enforceability of the lien against a good-faith purchaser without notice due to City’s post-approval failures to file/record the roll | City: absence of a 20-day appeal of the assessment deprives the court of jurisdiction; suit is a collateral attack on the roll | Court: Jurisdiction exists — circuit courts of general jurisdiction may decide enforceability, quiet-title, and declaratory claims; reversal of dismissal and remand for merits |
| Whether Bingham’s claims are barred as collateral attacks under SDCL 9-43-125 | Bingham: claims concern post-approval irregularities (untimely filing) that affect enforceability against a purchaser, not approval of the roll | City: statute bars attacks on validity of proceedings up to approval of the roll; no timely appeal was filed | Court: SDCL 9-43-125 does not preclude claims about subsequent noncompliance that affect enforceability; claims are not simply collateral attacks on approval |
| Whether the lien was enforceable against Bingham (good-faith purchaser without notice) | Bingham: lien unenforceable because City failed to timely file/record the assessment roll, so purchaser lacked notice | City: lien valid and enforceable; procedural appeal limitations bar challenge | Court: Did not decide merits; remanded for factual/merits determination but confirmed court has power to hear enforceability claim |
| Whether the circuit court erred by denying the City's request for attorney fees under SDCL 15-17-51 | City: Bingham’s suit was frivolous/malicious and dismissal warranted fees | Bingham: brought a rational argument based on untimely filing and lack of notice | Held: Denial of fees was not an abuse of discretion because the court has jurisdiction and Bingham’s claim was not frivolous; appellate fees denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Upell v. Dewey Cty. Comm'n, 880 N.W.2d 69 (2016) (statutory requirements for appealing administrative decisions limit appellate jurisdiction)
- In re Heupel Family Revocable Tr., 914 N.W.2d 571 (2018) (circuit courts are courts of general jurisdiction empowered to hear civil actions)
- Sazama v. State ex rel. Muilenberg, 729 N.W.2d 335 (2007) (definition of subject-matter jurisdiction depends on the nature of the proceeding and relief sought)
- Cable v. Union Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 769 N.W.2d 817 (2009) (subject-matter jurisdiction is conferred only by constitutional or statutory provision)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (subject-matter jurisdiction is the courts’ statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case)
- Gould, Inc. v. United States, 67 F.3d 925 (1995) (distinguishing dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction from dismissal for failure to state a claim)