6 N.W.3d 671
S.D.2024Background
- Scotlynn Transport owned a semi-tractor and trailer involved in a Meade County accident; Plains Towing removed both vehicles at police direction and stored them at its impound lot.
- Scotlynn promptly retrieved the trailer and paid all current fees, but left the damaged tractor at Plains Towing's facility, expecting to store it until their insurance adjuster could inspect it.
- Plains Towing subsequently sent a statutory notice by certified mail to Scotlynn, marked the tractor as "abandoned," and, after 30 days and no contact, applied for and obtained title to the tractor from the South Dakota Department of Revenue (DOR).
- Scotlynn later learned Plains Towing obtained title, and sued on four claims: claim and delivery, conversion, fraud, and breach of implied contract for storage.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to Plains Towing on grounds of statutory compliance, finding it properly obtained title under SDCL 32-36-9; Scotlynn appealed, arguing unresolved material facts on the implied contract claim and technical errors in the notice.
- The appeal centers on whether an implied contract to store the tractor existed and whether strict compliance with statutory title procedures was met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of Implied Contract for Storage | Parties agreed, via conduct and exchange, to store tractor until adjuster came | No express/implied agreement to store indefinitely; just statutory fee accrual | Material fact exists; not proper for summary judgment |
| Statutory Notice Compliance | Notice had drafting errors, called tractor "abandoned," wrong fees, etc. | Statute only requires notice sent; errors immaterial as to compliance | Errors were not material; notice requirements satisfied |
| Right to Obtain Title Under Statute | Tractor ceased to be "impounded" when paid for; shouldn't vest title to Plains | Tractor remained impounded/eligible under statute after notice period | If no implied contract, title would vest per statute |
| Fraud | Defendant fraudulently misrepresented status to DOR/Scotlynn | No evidence of a knowingly false statement | Plaintiff did not support a fraud claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Zochert v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 921 N.W.2d 479 (S.D. 2018) (standards for summary judgment; reviewing evidence and support for upholding summary judgment)
- Weller v. Spring Creek Resort, Inc., 477 N.W.2d 839 (S.D. 1991) (definition and formation of implied contracts under South Dakota law)
- J. Clancy, Inc. v. Khan Comfort, LLC, 955 N.W.2d 382 (S.D. 2021) (elements of implied-in-fact contracts and how mutual assent is determined)