Gartner v. Temple
2014 SD 74
| S.D. | 2014Background
- Gartner and Doug Temple bought a 3,374.9-acre ranch in 2007; Gartner held 1/4 interest, Doug Temple 3/4. After Doug’s 2009 death, Merle Temple (appellant) inherited the 3/4 interest.
- The ranch is bisected by the White River: ~60% north parcel (no winter cattle protection), ~40% south parcel containing Gartner’s house and ranch headquarters.
- Relations soured; Gartner sued for partition in 2012. The court appointed three referees who inspected the property and recommended dividing along the White River: Gartner (south) ~920 acres; Temple (north) ~2,454.9 acres.
- Because Gartner had only a 1/4 interest but received ~40% of acreage, the referees recommended an owelty (compensatory payment) of $102,337 from Gartner to Temple; the circuit court adopted the Report and denied Temple’s request to value permanent structures at replacement cost or to award additional land.
- Temple appealed, arguing the partition causes great prejudice (warranting sale), the referees undervalued structures, and the compensatory payment should have been reduced by awarding him more land.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether partition by sale should have been ordered | Temple: Partition in kind causes great prejudice; resulting parcels won’t function as economic units and are grossly unequal | Gartner: Presumption favors partition in kind; referees’ division and owelty address value disparities | Court: Affirmed partition in kind. Temple failed to prove "great prejudice"; experts and market evidence showed smaller tracts have demand and whole ranch may not be an economic unit |
| Whether the court erred adopting the Referees’ Report valuation | Temple: Referees undervalued permanent structures (market vs replacement cost), producing unfair allocation | Gartner: Referees valued parcels by market value; report is proposal for court and court acted within discretion | Court: No error. Replacement cost is not the appropriate measure; court may review but adoption was within discretion |
| Whether the compensatory payment should have been converted to more land | Temple: The $102,337 owelty effectively forces sale of ~200 acres; court should award more acreage instead | Gartner: Court has broad equitable discretion to fashion remedy; owelty minimizes disruption and reflects equitable split | Court: No abuse of discretion. Reduction of owelty in favor of acreage was not required; referees’ division following natural boundary was reasonable |
| Standard of review and prejudicial showing required | Temple: Partition is inequitable here and sale is required | Gartner: Legal standards favor in-kind partition unless great prejudice shown | Court: Applied abuse-of-discretion (equitable) and clearly-erroneous standards; burden on proponent of sale to prove great prejudice; burden unmet |
Key Cases Cited
- Eli v. Eli, 557 N.W.2d 405 (S.D. 1997) (presumption favoring partition in kind; courts weigh totality of circumstances)
- Englehart v. Larson, 566 N.W.2d 152 (S.D. 1997) (partition proceedings are equitable and referees’ methods valued by market value)
- Schnell v. Schnell, 346 N.W.2d 713 (N.D. 1984) (defines "great prejudice" standard and compares partition vs sale outcomes)
- Johnson v. Hendrickson, 24 N.W.2d 914 (S.D. 1946) (sale may be ordered if partition materially reduces cotenant shares relative to sale proceeds)
- Berg v. Kremers, 181 N.W.2d 730 (N.D. 1970) (value comparison guidance for determining great prejudice)
- Lien v. Lien, 674 N.W.2d 816 (S.D. 2004) (trial court has broad discretion in fashioning equitable remedies)
- Arneson v. Arneson, 670 N.W.2d 904 (S.D. 2003) (abuse of discretion standard defined)