17 N.W.3d 874
S.D.2025Background
- Robert Mack, a beneficiary of his parents’ estate and trust, became embroiled in a dispute with his brothers, Hugh and Eric, who served as co-personal representatives and co-trustees.
- After extended probate and litigation, Hugh and Eric sought court approval to distribute estate assets to Robert, deducting damages he owed from a previous jury verdict.
- Robert’s attorney, Donahoe, appeared at the hearing on the proposed distribution, did not object, and the court entered an order approving the distribution.
- Donahoe’s law license was subsequently suspended due to concerns over his competence; he had not communicated with Robert about the distribution or obtained his authorization.
- Robert, via new counsel, moved for relief from the distribution order under SDCL 15-6-60(b)(6), arguing lack of notice and attorney misconduct; the circuit court denied relief.
- Robert appealed the denial of his motion for relief.
Issues
| Issue | Mack's Argument | Hugh/Eric's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relief from distribution order under Rule 60(b)(6) | Donahoe lacked authority and did not notify Robert of the hearing; exceptional circumstances exist. | Robert’s claims of no communication are not credible; order was fair; Robert got his entitled share. | Reversed; circuit court abused discretion, relief warranted. |
| Entitlement to evidentiary hearing on valuation | Robert entitled to a hearing to contest valuation as the values may have been overstated. | No prejudice; Robert received one-fifth as provided in will. | Remanded for evidentiary hearing on distribution petition. |
| Attorney representation fidelity | Donahoe failed to communicate or obtain authority, breaching fiduciary duties. | Not directly addressed. | Extraordinary circumstances due to attorney misconduct. |
| Fairness and equity of order | Order unfair as it did not reflect current asset values or provide hearing. | Order was fair and equitable to all parties. | Order’s fairness not properly determined without hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lowe v. Schwartz, 716 N.W.2d 777 (S.D. 2006) (Rule 60(b) is not a substitute for appeal and is reserved for extraordinary circumstances)
- Geier v. Geier, 828 N.W.2d 804 (S.D. 2013) (Liberality in Rule 60(b) relief is greater when merits have not been considered)
- Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Rock Creek Farms, 836 N.W.2d 631 (S.D. 2013) (Rule 60(b)(6) grants courts authority for relief when justice so requires)
- Hrachovec v. Kaarup, 516 N.W.2d 309 (S.D. 1994) (Balancing finality of judgments with justice under Rule 60(b))