Estate of Jones, 970 N.W.2d 520

Background

Dale D. Jones died on January 4, 2020 after being struck by a car; he was survived by his wife Lisa and adult children Doug and Jessica (who allege Lisa and Dale had been estranged and living apart for ≈5 years).
Lisa was appointed personal representative in formal probate based on spousal priority; Doug and Jessica earlier sought co-appointment but were not made PRs.
Doug and Jessica petitioned (Oct. 28, 2020) for appointment of a special administrator to pursue a wrongful-death claim, alleging Lisa is conflicted/unfit (financial instability, estrangement, and incentives tied to workers’ compensation offsets) and that an independent administrator would protect all beneficiaries.
Doug and Jessica served interrogatories and document requests (Nov. 5, 2020) seeking financials, workers’ compensation/benefit information, estate assets, and a deposition; Lisa refused to respond and moved for a protective order (noticed for Feb. 11, 2021); Doug and Jessica moved to compel and noticed that motion for the same date.
At the Feb. 11 hearing (noticed for discovery), the court heard argument on the Petition, denied appointment of a special administrator on the merits, then deemed the discovery motions moot, denied the motion to compel, and granted Lisa’s protective order; an order was entered March 2, 2021.
The South Dakota Supreme Court granted discretionary review; it held Doug and Jessica waived their procedural notice objection but reversed the denial of the Petition and the protective order because the circuit court abused its discretion by deciding the Petition before resolving discovery and by granting a blanket protective order without finding good cause; the case was remanded for the court to address discovery first.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Doug & Jessica)	Defendant's Argument (Lisa)	Held
Whether the circuit court erred by ruling on the Petition when it was not noticed for hearing	Petition required notice and hearing under probate statutes; not noticed for Feb. 11 hearing	Hearing was proper because parties appeared and argued; court has discretion	Waiver: plaintiffs appeared and argued the Petition without objecting; objection to lack of notice was waived
Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by resolving the Petition before addressing discovery motions	Discovery was necessary to develop evidence on Lisa’s fitness/conflict and apportionment issues; court should have ruled on motion to compel first	Discovery was moot once Petition denied; probate efficiency and apportionment issues aren’t ripe; protective order appropriate	Abuse of discretion: court improperly declared discovery moot and granted blanket protective order without specific good-cause findings; reversed and remanded for discovery rulings before adjudicating the Petition

Key Cases Cited

Estate of Fox, 925 N.W.2d 467 (S.D. 2019) (statutory interpretation and standard of review cited)
State v. Fifteen Impounded Cats, 785 N.W.2d 272 (S.D. 2010) (actual participation can waive notice defects)
Matter of Estate of Petrik, 963 N.W.2d 766 (S.D. 2021) (petition in probate is a formal proceeding requiring notice and hearing)
In re Estate of Laue, 790 N.W.2d 765 (S.D. 2010) (South Dakota applies Rules of Civil Procedure to formal probate proceedings)
Ferguson v. Thaemert, 952 N.W.2d 277 (S.D. 2020) (recognition of broad scope of discovery under SDCL 15-6-26(b))
Bertelsen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 796 N.W.2d 685 (S.D. 2011) (burden and good-cause standards for protective orders)
Magbuhat v. Kovarik, 382 N.W.2d 43 (S.D. 1986) (discovery designed to promote truth-finding)
In re Remington Arms Co., Inc., 952 F.2d 1029 (8th Cir. 1991) (burden shifts to party seeking discovery once movant shows harm)
Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204 (8th Cir. 1973) (movant must make a particularized showing to obtain a protective order)
Luze v. New FB Co., 952 N.W.2d 264 (S.D. 2020) (addresses workers’ compensation offsets and subrogation against third-party recoveries)