Slota v. Imhoff, 949 N.W.2d 869

Slota was indicted (Feb 2013) for first-degree rape and sexual contact with a child; he retained Imhoff (a California firm) to defend him.
Imhoff retained local attorneys Evans and de Castro and assigned associate Dorvall; Slota alleges Imhoff and counsel misrepresented experience (sex-crimes expertise) and promised services (polygraph, experts).
A jury convicted Slota (Mar 2014); he was later sentenced and lost a direct appeal. He filed habeas (Sept 2015) alleging ineffective assistance; the habeas court vacated the conviction and ordered a new trial (June 2017); charges were later dismissed.
Slota sued (July 2017) for legal malpractice, fraud and deceit, and intentional abandonment; he alleged the representations and omissions induced him to accept inadequate counsel and caused his conviction.
Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing SDCL 15-2-14.2 (three-year statute of repose for legal malpractice) barred the claims; the circuit court dismissed all claims as time-barred.
On appeal the South Dakota Supreme Court held the fraud/deceit claims were subsumed by malpractice and therefore extinguished by the three-year repose statute; the dismissal was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fraud/deceit claims against counsel are barred by the three-year legal-malpractice statute of repose (SDCL 15-2-14.2)	Slota: fraud is governed by the six-year fraud statute and fiduciary/fraud claims lie outside the malpractice repose	Defendants: the alleged misrepresentations arise from the attorney-client relationship and are repackaged malpractice claims subject to the three-year repose	Held: Repose applies — fraud claims arise from the professional services and damages asserted are identical to malpractice, so they are extinguished by SDCL 15-2-14.2
Whether fiduciary/intentional-fraud theories can avoid the repose bar	Slota: fiduciary duties create distinct causes of action not subject to the repose	Defendants: fiduciary breach here is a species of malpractice when causation/damages are the same	Held: When conduct and damages are inseparable from malpractice, repose bars fiduciary/fraud claims
Whether pleading particularity or the nature of the alleged statements (opinions about future events) defeats the defense	Slota: pleaded actionable misrepresentations and reliance	Defendants: fraud was not pleaded with particularity and many statements were nonactionable predictions	Held: Court did not decide sufficiency; disposition rests on repose, so those arguments were unnecessary to resolve

Robinson-Podoll v. Harmelink, Fox, & Ravnsborg Law Office, 939 N.W.2d 32 (S.D. 2020) (held legal-malpractice statute is a statute of repose)
Pitt-Hart v. Sanford USD Med. Ctr., 878 N.W.2d 406 (S.D. 2016) (explains repose vs. limitation; statutes of repose create a right not to be sued)
Morgan v. Baldwin, 450 N.W.2d 783 (S.D. 1990) (gravamen controls; where contract predominates, longer limitations may apply)
Bruske v. Hille, 567 N.W.2d 872 (S.D. 1997) (fraud claims that are malpractice in substance cannot evade malpractice limitations)
Masloskie v. Century 21 Am. Real Estate, Inc., 818 N.W.2d 798 (S.D. 2012) (analyzed when fraud and malpractice claims may coexist; use nature of allegations)
Clark Cty. v. Sioux Equip. Corp., 753 N.W.2d 406 (S.D. 2008) (statute of repose extinguishes claims and they cannot be revived)
Loesch v. City of Huron, 723 N.W.2d 694 (S.D. 2006) (standards for judgment on the pleadings)