Detmers v. Costner, 2012 SD 35

Detmers and Detmers Studios sued Costner and The Dunbar seeking a declaratory judgment on a May 2000 contract about placement and profits from the sculptures.
The May 2000 agreement provided 50% of profits and copyright back to Detmers if The Dunbar was not built within 10 years or if the sculptures were not ‘agreeably displayed elsewhere.’
Paragraph four required locating a display site if The Dunbar was not under construction within three years after the last sculpture was delivered.
Tatanka, a separate Costner project, was developed and used as a display site for the sculptures; Detmers participated in Tatanka’s design and opening.
Detmers asserted she did not agree to Tatanka as a display location unless The Dunbar would be built; the circuit court found she did agree, and Costner prevailed at bench trial.
The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed, holding that Tatanka was ‘elsewhere’ from The Dunbar and that Detmers had no guaranteed expectation The Dunbar would be built.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 'elsewhere' in the contract means a site other than The Dunbar	Detmers argues 'elsewhere' requires a site other than The Dunbar, and no guarantee of Dunbar's construction exists.	Costner contends 'elsewhere' means any site other than The Dunbar, here Tatanka, since Dunbar was not built.	Yes; 'elsewhere' means a place other than The Dunbar, Tatanka qualifies.

Alto Township v. Mendenhall, 803 N.W.2d 839 (S.D. 2011) (clear error standard for findings of fact; de novo review of law)
Pankratz v. Hoff, 806 N.W.2d 231 (S.D. 2011) (contract ambiguity and interpretation standards in SD law)
Clarkson & Co. v. Cont’l Res., Inc., 806 N.W.2d 618 (S.D. 2011) (contract interpretation and plain meaning rule)
Culhane v. W. N. Mut. Ins. Co., 704 N.W.2d 287 (S.D. 2005) (legally enforceable contract language; no rewrite of terms)
Nelson v. Schellpfeffer, 656 N.W.2d 740 (S.D. 2003) (contract interpretation when words are clear and explicit)