Huston v. Martin, 919 N.W.2d 356

Dale Jarman owned a large ranch and, at his urging, his daughter June Huston conveyed large tracts of land to him (2011) and to her nephew Vance Martin (2013); Huston claims Jarman threatened disinheritance and promised to "make things right" by leaving her half his estate.
Jarman revised his estate plan to leave nearly all assets to Martin and, by his 2014 will, left Huston only $30,000; Jarman had transferred millions to Martin during his lifetime.
The estate published notice to creditors in July 2014; Huston sued the estate and Martin in July 2015 for breach of contract, fraud, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) breach-of-contract claims to devise must be in writing under SDCL 29A-2-514 (no partial-performance exception), and (2) SDCL 29A-3-803 barred claims that arose before decedent’s death if not presented within four months of published notice.
The circuit court granted summary judgment without detailed findings. Huston appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of contract to devise	Huston: an oral promise by Jarman (to leave her half the estate) is enforceable due to her partial performance (conveying land) / equitable estoppel	Martin & Estate: SDCL 29A-2-514 requires a writing; statute bars oral contract to make a will and contains no partial-performance exception	Court: Affirmed dismissal — SDCL 29A-2-514 limits proof of such contracts to the statute’s written methods; oral agreement cannot be enforced
Fraud	Huston: fraud is tort-based and survives even if contract fails; factual issues (letters, transfers) preclude summary judgment	Martin & Estate: Fraud/claims arose during decedent’s life and are barred by nonclaim statute SDCL 29A-3-803 if not presented within four months of published notice	Court: Affirmed dismissal — the fraud claim was a contingent claim that arose during Jarman’s lifetime and was not timely presented, so SDCL 29A-3-803 bars it
Unjust enrichment against Martin	Huston: Martin received and knew of the benefit; equity requires restitution; fact issues exist on Martin’s knowledge and inequity	Martin: No wrongful or inequitable conduct; no basis for restitution absent misconduct	Court: Reversed dismissal as to Martin — genuine factual disputes about knowledge and inequity preclude summary judgment on unjust enrichment

Niesche v. Wilkinson, 841 N.W.2d 250 (S.D. 2013) (statutory writing requirement under SDCL 29A-2-514 bars unwritten contracts to devise)
Spohr v. Berryman, 589 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1991) (claims based on pre-death agreements characterized as contingent and barred by nonclaim statute when not timely filed)
In re Estate of Green, 516 N.W.2d 326 (S.D. 1994) (prior South Dakota decision distinguishing when nonclaim statutes apply to contract-to-devise claims)
Cragle v. Gray, 206 P.3d 446 (Alaska 2009) (adopting UPC-style restriction that contracts to devise require specified written proof; rejects part-performance exception)
Commercial Trust & Savings Bank v. Christensen, 535 N.W.2d 853 (S.D. 1995) (discussing unjust enrichment and contexts where equitable restitution is unavailable)