First National Bank v. Inghram, 969 N.W.2d 471

Justin and Sharmin Inghram obtained five FNB loans to renovate and operate a meat-processing business; construction was delayed and loans fell into default.
Loan officer Richter recommended electrician Jack Johnson; Inghrams allege FNB steered them to Johnson and altered financial statements sent to other lenders.
FNB sued to foreclose mortgages and replevy business collateral; the Inghrams counterclaimed for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract.
The circuit court granted summary judgment to FNB on foreclosure and replevin, denied dismissal of the fraud counterclaim (leaving it pending), awarded FNB attorney fees, and certified the foreclosure/replevin judgment as final under SDCL 15-6-54(b).
The Inghrams appealed, arguing the Rule 54(b) certification was improper because the fraud counterclaim is intertwined and the court failed to marshal or articulate the required factors.
The South Dakota Supreme Court held the Rule 54(b) certification was unsupported by a reasoned statement and that the pending fraud claim was sufficiently connected to the adjudicated claims to preclude certification, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

Issue	FNB's Argument	Inghrams' Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by certifying a partial final judgment under SDCL 15-6-54(b)	Certification appropriate because foreclosure/replevin resolved core dispute and delay would cause hardship to bank	Certification improper: court failed to marshal and balance Rule 54(b) factors; certification amounts to piecemeal appeal	Court held certification was inadequately supported and abused discretion; appeal dismissed
Whether the surviving fraud counterclaim precluded Rule 54(b) certification	Certification still proper despite pending counterclaim	Fraud claim is factually intertwined and could lead to setoff or affect foreclosure judgment, so certification is improper	Court agreed the fraud claim was interwoven and weighed against certification
Sufficiency of the attorney-fee award and supporting affidavit (procedural posture)	Bank sought $48,012; offered redacted billing or in-camera review, argued award appropriate	Inghrams argued affidavit lacked itemized hours and court made no reasoned analysis of fee factors	Supreme Court did not reach merits because appeal dismissed on Rule 54(b) grounds; lower court had awarded full fees and certified order

Nelson v. Est. of Campbell, 963 N.W.2d 560 (S.D. 2021) (sets out three Rule 54(b) guiding principles and factors courts must consider and articulate)
Stromberger Farms, Inc. v. Johnson, 942 N.W.2d 249 (S.D. 2020) (upholds Rule 54(b) certification when justification is readily apparent from record)
Jacquot v. Rozum, 790 N.W.2d 498 (S.D. 2010) (standard of review is abuse of discretion and court must provide reasoned statement supporting certification)
Weisser v. Jackson Twp. of Charles Mix Cnty., 767 N.W.2d 888 (S.D. 2009) (Rule 54(b) certification is not routine; requires special circumstances)
Davis v. Farmland Mut. Ins. Co., 669 N.W.2d 713 (S.D. 2003) (purpose of Rule 54(b) is to improve administration of justice, not to accommodate counsel)
Stabler v. First State Bank of Roscoe, 865 N.W.2d 466 (S.D. 2015) (explains remedies for fraud in the inducement: affirm contract and seek tort damages or repudiate and seek rescission)
Huls v. Meyer, 943 N.W.2d 340 (S.D. 2020) (reiterates appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to final judgments)