Magner v. Brinkman
2016 SD 50
| S.D. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Magner and Williams) own a 40-acre tract adjacent to Defendants (Brinkmans’) 160-acre tract; Plaintiffs’ land sits lower and historically receives runoff from Defendants’ land.
- Following large rain/snowmelt events in 2007–2010, trenches and a private road with a culvert on Defendants’ property altered drainage patterns and Plaintiffs’ pond and northwest parcel experienced increased flooding and siltation.
- Plaintiffs sued for public and private nuisance seeking past damages and a permanent injunction requiring corrective/preventive work; a jury awarded $9,950 in damages.
- Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law (directed verdict/JNOV) arguing Plaintiffs failed to prove Defendants caused increased drainage; the trial court denied the motions.
- After a hearing the circuit court entered a permanent injunction ordering Defendants to pay $28,936 for improvements to Plaintiffs’ property and prohibiting future alterations that would adversely affect Plaintiffs’ drainage; Defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judgment as a matter of law should have been granted | Plaintiffs argued they presented testimony showing Defendants dug trenches and built a drive/culvert that diverted more water onto Plaintiffs’ land | Defendants argued there was no competent evidence tying their actions to increased drainage (experts said no man-made alteration) | Court (de novo) held sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable jury to find Defendants caused increased drainage; denial of JMOL affirmed |
| Proper standard of review for denial/grant of JMOL | N/A (Plaintiffs relied on existing practice) | Defendants pressed appellate review of sufficiency | Court held review of JMOL rulings is de novo (overruling/clarifying prior practice) |
| Whether SDCL 21-8-14 authorized the money component of the injunction | Plaintiffs sought payment for preventive improvements and argued injunctive relief appropriate to prevent future harm | Defendants argued money award exceeded equitable authority and future damages could be awarded as monetary relief | Court held statute did not authorize a permanent injunction ordering a monetary payment for future improvements because pecuniary relief was adequate; money component reversed |
| Validity/scope of injunction prohibiting future alterations | Plaintiffs sought prohibitory relief to prevent repeated drainage harm | Defendants contended prohibition was overbroad and beyond statute | Court remanded for consideration whether statute authorizes prohibition; held the injunction as written was overbroad because it would bar even "reasonable" drainage by a dominant estate and thus was an abuse of discretion unless narrowed on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Lytle v. Morgan, 270 N.W.2d 359 (S.D. 1978) (earlier South Dakota decision that the Court analyzed and limited in discussing standard of review for JMOL)
- Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc., 249 N.W.2d 251 (S.D. 1976) (trial-court factual-deference language examined in relation to JMOL review)
- Hendrickson v. Wagners, Inc., 598 N.W.2d 507 (S.D. 1999) (discretionary review of injunctions and discussion of drainage law)
- Bertelsen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 833 N.W.2d 545 (S.D. 2013) (example of prior South Dakota sufficiency-of-evidence review language)
- Bridge v. Karl’s, Inc., 538 N.W.2d 521 (S.D. 1995) (statement that South Dakota is not a "trial-by-expert" jurisdiction; factfinder may accept or reject expert testimony)