Center of Life Church v. Nelson, 913 N.W.2d 105

Nelsons sold a 6,100 sq ft house with two basements; they had installed dewatering systems after prior water penetration and completed the SDCL seller disclosure form before sale.
On the disclosure form Nelsons checked “Yes” to prior water penetration, wrote only “Basement,” and noted a dewatering system installed in the last five years; they did not attach the home-inspection report’s details.
Center of Life Church purchased the house without an inspection; shortly after closing severe, recurring water intrusion and drainage failures became apparent.
Church sued for violation of statutory disclosure (SDCL ch. 43-4), fraudulent/ negligent misrepresentation and concealment; jury found for Church on statutory-disclosure claim and awarded damages.
Post-trial, the court denied Nelsons’ renewed JMOL and new-trial motions and denied the Church’s request for attorney fees; both parties appealed (Nelsons and Church by notice of review on fees).
Supreme Court affirmed: sufficient evidence supported jury’s finding that Nelsons’ disclosure was not "complete and truthful" in good faith; no abuse of discretion in denying new trial or fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Center of Life)	Defendant's Argument (Nelsons)	Held
Whether JMOL should be granted on statutory-disclosure claim	Nelsons omitted ongoing nature of defect; evidence supports liability	Disclosure was truthful — they disclosed “Basement” and dewatering system, so no statutory liability	Denied; de novo review: sufficient circumstantial and expert evidence supported jury that disclosures were not complete and made in good faith
Whether new trial required for references to insurance	References were to unrelated parties and harmless; curative instruction adequate	Insurance references and sequestration violation prejudiced Nelsons	Denied; no demonstrated prejudice and jury instructed to disregard improper references
Whether new trial required for sequestration/order violations and testimony	Any brief courtroom presence and struck testimony were harmless; curative instructions sufficient	Violation of sequestration and objectionable testimony (Kilz) prejudiced fairness	Denied; brief presence and struck testimony did not show prejudice
Whether prevailing purchaser is entitled to attorney fees under SDCL 43-4-42	Fees should be awarded as prevailing party	Statute is discretionary (“may”); court properly declined fees under equitable factors	Denied; award of fees is discretionary and trial court reasonably balanced factors (culpability, diligence, reliance, deterrence)

Engelhart v. Kramer, 570 N.W.2d 550 (S.D. 1997) (disclosure statutes require complete and truthful disclosures; caveat emptor abandoned)
Fuller v. Croston, 725 N.W.2d 600 (S.D. 2006) (seller must make a complete and truthful disclosure made in good faith)
Magner v. Brinkman, 883 N.W.2d 74 (S.D. 2016) (appellate standard: de novo review of renewed JMOL; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (statutory “may” for attorney fees grants judicial discretion; no automatic British-rule award)
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978) (limits on presumptive fee awards in statutory civil-rights contexts)
Steineke v. Delzer, 807 N.W.2d 629 (S.D. 2011) (no deference to trial court on JMOL under de novo standard)