818 N.W.2d 798
S.D.2012Background
- Masloskies sued Baldwin and Century 21 for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and related claims after relying on misrepresentations about property access to a Forest Service power pole.
- Baldwin and Century 21 moved for summary judgment arguing all claims were time-barred under three-year real estate malpractice statutes SDCL 15-2-14.6 and 15-2-14.7.
- Masloskies contended the fraud claim was governed by SDCL 15-2-13(6), a six-year statute of limitations for fraud.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment holding all actions time-barred under malpractice statutes.
- South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether fraud claims may be governed by a longer statute when multiple theories arise from one transaction.
- Court ultimately reversed and remanded on the fraud claim to determine applicability of the six-year period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations governs the fraud claim | Masloskies seek six-year fraud limit | Baldwin argues malpractice statutes control | Fraud statute applies (six years) |
| Whether the gravamen of the action supports fraud over malpractice | Fraud and related claims predominate | Action is malpractice-based | Gravamen includes fraud, so six-year limit governs |
| Whether the fraud claim is time-barred based on the chosen limitations period | Evidence supports fraud within six years | Evidence barred by shorter period | Remand for fraud claim proceedings; not time-barred as to fraud |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. Baldwin, 450 N.W.2d 783 (S.D. 1990) (considering dual contract/malpractice claims; apply longer period when gravamen is mixed)
- Bruske v. Hille, 567 N.W.2d 872 (S.D. 1997) (professional misconduct may be within malpractice statute; distinguishes fraud vs malpractice in professional duties)
- Rehm v. Lenz, 547 N.W.2d 560 (S.D. 1996) (separate consideration of malpractice and fraud in psychiatrist-client relation; apply longer period when doubt exists)
- Richards v. Lenz, 539 N.W.2d 80 (S.D. 1995) (separate consideration of malpractice and fraud; gravamen controls statute of limitations)
- Martinmaas v. Engelmann, 612 N.W.2d 600 (S.D. 2000) (discussed rules for when same transaction implicates multiple statutes; applied longer period when appropriate)
- N. Am. Truck & Trailer, Inc. v. M.C.I. Commc’n Servs., Inc., 751 N.W.2d 710 (S.D. 2008) (defines fraud elements and supports treating fraud claims distinctly from mere negligence)