798 N.W.2d 422
S.D.2011Background
- Terry and Susan Brown own adjacent land; they signed a Common Well and Road Easement Agreement with James Hanson, filed of record in Meade County.
- Hanson later sent a May 19, 2006 letter purporting to rescind the agreement for alleged breaches, which the Browns contended was legally invalid.
- The Browns sold to Joe and Paula Ford; the May 2006 filing created a title exception, blocking closing and financing for the sale.
- Browns sued for declaratory relief, slander of title, and tortious interference with the Ford contract; trial court granted partial summary judgment on declaratory relief affirming the agreement could not be rescinded.
- After a court trial, the district court awarded the Browns damages: slander of title, tortious interference, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and pecuniary damages, with later remand for corrected calculations.
- On appeal, Hanson challenges slander of title and tortious interference findings, the attorneys’ fees under 43-30-9, and the pecuniary damages calculation; the Court affirms in part and remands in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hanson slandered Brown title by filing the May 19, 2006 letter | Brown v. Hanson | Hanson claims conditional privilege | Liability affirmed; malice shown; no privilege defense |
| Whether Hanson tortiously interfered with the Browns' contract with the Fords | Hanson improperly interfered to protect his interests | Interference justified by legitimate interest | Interference found; unjustified act supported evidence |
| Whether attorneys’ fees awarded under SDCL 43-30-9 were proper | Fees recoverable as special damages or under 43-30-9 | No award under 43-30-9; only special damages allowed | 43-30-9 award error; fees recoverable as special damages, not under 43-30-9 |
| Whether the Browns may recover compensatory damages for the $6,300 Ford credit | Credit to Ford is compensatory damage caused by delay | Credit not properly characterized as compensatory damages | Credit affirmed as compensatory damages; remand for precise calculations |
| Whether prejudgment and other pecuniary damages were properly calculated | Allow interest on net proceeds and other shown losses | Appropriate calculation approved; no double recovery | Damages upheld in theory; remanded for corrected figures |
Key Cases Cited
- Gregory’s, Inc. v. Haan, 545 N.W.2d 488 (S.D. 1996) (slander of title elements and publication of false statements)
- Knight v. Madison, 634 N.W.2d 540 (S.D. 2001) (definition of easement and water-rights as covenants running with land)
- Colton v. Decker, 540 N.W.2d 172 (S.D. 1995) (attorney fees recoverable when necessary to recover property)
- Jacobson v. Leisinger, 746 N.W.2d 739 (S.D. 2008) (attorney fees recoverable when necessitated by the act of the party charged)
- Foster v. Dischner, 212 N.W. 506 (S.D. 1927) (attorney fees permitted in certain recovery contexts)
- Selle v. Tozser, 786 N.W.2d 748 (S.D. 2010) (elements of tortious interference standard articulated)
- McGregor v. Crumley, 775 N.W.2d 91 (S.D. 2009) (standard of review for factual findings)