Busselman v. Egge
2015 SD 38
| S.D. | 2015Background
- Todd and Joanne Egge placed fences, a monument, and a sign that partly lie within a platted but unimproved service road adjacent to their Lot 1.
- Neighbor Gary Busselman (owner of Lot 2) sued Egges seeking damages and an injunction to remove the obstructions, asserting the service road was a public right-of-way dedicated by a 1979 plat and accepted by a governmental entity.
- The 1979 plat contained a general dedication clause; the City of Sioux Falls and Minnehaha County had approved the plat under joint-jurisdiction procedures, but Egges argued approval did not equal acceptance.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Busselman, finding dedication and acceptance and ordering removal of the obstructions; Egges moved for reconsideration raising indispensable-party joinder (City or Split Rock Township), but the court denied reconsideration without ruling on joinder.
- On appeal Egges contended a governmental entity that could accept or maintain the road was an indispensable party under SDCL 15-6-19(a); the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for joinder of the appropriate governmental entity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Busselman) | Defendant's Argument (Egges) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a governmental entity that could accept or maintain the platted road is an indispensable party | Joinder not required because plat dedication + City resolution approving the plat suffice as acceptance; joinder unnecessary for injunction | Joinder required because a governmental entity must be joined to determine acceptance and to protect public interests; without it complete relief cannot be accorded | The governmental entity is an indispensable party; reverse and remand for joinder |
| Whether joinder can be raised on appeal though not moved below | Issue was mentioned at reconsideration hearing; may be considered on appeal | Same: joinder issue preserved sufficiently for appellate review | Court may consider nonjoinder sua sponte or on appeal; issue considered here |
| Whether Egges met the initial burden to show an indispensable party existed | N/A (Busselman contends Egges failed to carry burden) | Egges identified factual disputes suggesting a governmental acceptance issue requiring joinder | Egges raised sufficient factual showing to shift burden to Busselman to negate need for joinder; Busselman failed to meet that burden |
| Whether finding acceptance forces governmental maintenance or exposes parties to inconsistent obligations | Busselman: road is unimproved/unopened, so acceptance need not compel opening or maintenance; joinder unnecessary | Egges: a judicial declaration of acceptance may practically impair governmental interests or subject parties to inconsistent obligations; therefore government is indispensable | Court held acceptance determination may implicate public-entity interests and risk inconsistent obligations; joinder required |
Key Cases Cited
- Thieman v. Bohman, 645 N.W.2d 260 (S.D. 2002) (governmental authority is indispensable when declaration of a public road may require its maintenance or affect public interests)
- Smith v. Albrecht, 361 N.W.2d 626 (S.D. 1985) (government must be joined where declaration of a road as public would affect its maintenance responsibilities)
- J.K. Dean, Inc. v. KSD, Inc., 709 N.W.2d 22 (S.D. 2005) (finding dedication can obligate town maintenance and make public entity indispensable)
- Tinaglia v. Ittzes, 257 N.W.2d 724 (S.D. 1977) (easement by public use upheld; joinder not addressed and does not overrule later indispensable-party precedents)