Fix v. First State Bank of Roscoe
2011 S.D. 80
| S.D. | 2011Background
- Fix's life estate in the Faulk County house was conveyed to Jeff and Marie; the Bank required a warranty deed to secure their loan
- The Bank promised Fix she could possess the house for life in a letter from the bank president
- In 2005 the Bank foreclosed and removed Fix after Jeff and Marie conveyed the property to the Bank and later sold it to a third party
- Fix asserted multiple claims in state court including abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress; bankruptcy proceedings addressed ownership of some related claims
- Beck, the Edmunds County State’s Attorney, offered to dismiss criminal charges against Fix in exchange for her deed back to the Bank; Fix amended pleadings to include abuse of process against the Bank and attempted IIED against the Bank
- The jury found the Bank liable for abuse of process but awarded no damages; the trial court had previously granted summary judgment on the IIED claim against the Bank
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emotional distress damages require extreme and disabling distress? | Fix contends distress need not be extreme and disabling | Bank relies on traditional heightened standard | No, extreme/distressing proof not required for abuse of process damages |
| Whether there was a genuine issue for intentional infliction of emotional distress? | Fix asserts Bank's conduct was extreme and outrageous | Bank argues no extreme/outrageous conduct given facts | Summary judgment proper; no genuine issue on IIED against Bank |
| Whether the settlement with Beck reduces the total claim against the Bank? | Reduction should apply to compensatory damages only | Reduction applies to total claim under SDCL 15-8-17 | $50,000 settlement reduces the total claim against remaining tortfeasors (not limited to compensatory damages) |
| Whether alternate jurors can be selected by lot under SD laws? | Questioned whether lot method requires party agreement | Judge may select alternates by lot | Judge may choose alternate jurors by lot; the rule permits it |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryott v. First National Bank of Eden, 624 N.W.2d 96 (S.D. 2001) (interprets U.C.C. damages and independent tort requirement; emotional damages not recoverable under statute absent independent tort)
- Roth v. Farner-Bocken Co., 667 N.W.2d 651 (S.D. 2003) (emotional distress acknowledged in tort actions; supports recovery in abuse of process)
- Carey v. Jack Rabbit Lines, Inc., 309 N.W.2d 824 (S.D. 1981) (recognizes mental anguish as element of tort damages)
- Bean v. Best, 93 N.W.2d 403 (S.D. 1958) (damages for humiliation as part of tort damages)
- Davis v. Holy Terror Mining Co., 107 N.W. 374 (S.D. 1906) (considers damages including mental anguish in torts)
- Stene v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 583 N.W.2d 404 (S.D. 1998) (outlines rigorous standard for extreme/outrageous conduct)
- Harris v. Jefferson Partners, L.P., 653 N.W.2d 496 (S.D. 2002) (conduct must cause serious mental distress; extreme standard discussed)
- Citibank (S.D.), N.A. v. Hauff, 668 N.W.2d 528 (S.D. 2003) (discusses damages and emotional distress standards)
- Stoner v. Nash Finch, Inc., 446 N.W.2d 747 (N.D. 1989) (jury may consider wounded feelings and mental suffering in damages)