Peters v. Great Western Bank, Inc.
2015 SD 4
| S.D. | 2015Background
- Peters obtained a 2003 default judgment against Barker & Little, Inc. (BLI).
- BLI was the general partner in Barker & Little Limited Partnership III (BLLP) and related Hamilton entities; the Bank’s loan to BLI was secured by collateral including mobile homes and rent-to-own contracts owned by BLMHI.
- In 2008, the Bank foreclosed against BLLP and BLMHI and named BLI as a codefendant due to the entities’ relationships.
- The Bank settled with Hamilton-owned entities, transferring property to the Bank, but Peters was not joined or notified of these foreclosure actions.
- Peters sued the Bank for fraud, conversion, deceit, and unjust enrichment; the circuit court granted the Bank’s motion for summary judgment and denied Peters’ motion to compel discovery.
- The court held Peters did not have an interest in or lien on the foreclosure property as of the filing, so she was not required to be joined and discovery time was not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bank had to join Peters as defendant in foreclosure actions | Peters, as a judgment creditor, had an interest in the property | SDCL 21-49-15 requires joining those with an interest or lien as of filing | Peters had no interest or lien; Bank not required to join |
| Whether Peters deserved additional discovery time before summary judgment | Discovery was essential to oppose the motion | No essential facts identified; discovery not needed | Court did not abuse discretion; discovery not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Yetzer v. Young, 52 N.W. 1054 (S.D. 1892) (intervention threshold for judgment creditors seeking relief)
- First Nat’l Bank of Eden v. Meyer, 476 N.W.2d 267 (S.D. 1991) (notice to judgment lienholders in tax deed context)
- Stern Oil Co. v. Border States Paving, Inc., 848 N.W.2d 273 (S.D. 2014) (abuse of discovery before summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Keller, 739 N.W.2d 35 (S.D. 2007) (standards for amendment or opposition on discovery)
- Faircloth v. Raven Indus., Inc., 620 N.W.2d 198 (S.D. 2000) (text interpreting statutory purpose and avoiding surplusage)
- City of Rapid City v. Estes, 805 N.W.2d 714 (S.D. 2011) (statutory interpretation and ordinary meaning of terms)