982 N.W.2d 415
S.D.2022Background
- Kenneth delivered a purchase agreement and VanSloten’s earnest-money check to FDT intending FDT to serve as closing agent for sale of an empty lot; a dispute later arose over the earnest money and purchase agreement.
- The Goenses sued FDT and VanSloten; VanSloten answered and asserted a counterclaim against the Goenses.
- The Goenses moved for summary judgment; FDT moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Goenses’ claims against it; VanSloten filed no summary-judgment motion.
- The circuit court denied the Goenses’ motion and granted FDT’s motion, entering an order on October 12, 2021 dismissing the Goenses’ claims against FDT with prejudice.
- The October 12 order did not resolve the Goenses’ claims against VanSloten or VanSloten’s counterclaim and did not include an SDCL 15-6-54(b) certification.
- The Goenses appealed; the South Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the order was interlocutory absent a 54(b) certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Oct. 12, 2021 order was a final, appealable judgment | The order was a final judgment as to claims against FDT and thus appealable | The order did not dispose of all claims/parties and so was interlocutory without 54(b) certification | Order was interlocutory and not appealable; appeal dismissed |
| Whether SDCL 15-6-54(b) certification was required to appeal | Certification not required because the order finally adjudicated Goenses’ claims against FDT | Certification required when fewer than all claims or parties are adjudicated | 54(b) certification is required; absent it the ruling is subject to revision and not final |
| Whether the order affected a substantial right under SDCL 15-26A-3(2) making it appealable | The order affected a substantial right and thus qualified for appeal under SDCL 15-26A-3 | The presence of remaining claims and no 54(b) certification prevented appealability under 15-26A-3 | Court concluded appealability under 15-26A-3 was not shown and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the appellate court must address jurisdiction sua sponte | Not advanced | Not advanced | Court must affirmatively find jurisdiction on the record and will raise jurisdictional defects sua sponte |
Key Cases Cited
- Elliott v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Lake Cnty., 703 N.W.2d 361 (S.D. 2005) (appellate jurisdiction must affirmatively appear; court reviews jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Weisser v. Jackson Twp. of Charles Mix Cnty., 767 N.W.2d 888 (S.D. 2009) (order in multi-party action is not appealable as of right without Rule 54(b) certification)
- Riede v. Phillips, 277 N.W.2d 720 (S.D. 1979) (orders adjudicating fewer than all claims are interlocutory absent 54(b))
- Patterson v. Plowboy, LLC, 959 N.W.2d 55 (S.D. 2021) (appeal dismissed for lack of 54(b) certification)
- Nelson v. Estate of Campbell, 963 N.W.2d 560 (S.D. 2021) (inadequate 54(b) certification language defeats appealability)