Spiska Engineering, Inc. v. SPM Thermo-Shield, Inc.
2011 SD 23
S.D.2011Background
- Spiska Engineering, Inc. (Spiska) and SPM Thermo-Shield, Inc. had a confirmed arbitration award for breach of contract.
- A receiver was appointed to identify, collect, and liquidate Thermo-Shield assets to satisfy Spiska’s judgment.
- Raver, Thermo-Shield’s sole shareholder, was not a party to the receiver proceedings but received notice of the sale and objected.
- At the sale hearing, the court approved the sale; no injunctive relief was awarded at that hearing.
- The receiver’s proposed findings and conclusions later included language permanently enjoining Raver from competing with Thermo‑Shield, which the court adopted.
- Raver objected to the injunctive language on procedural and substantive grounds, including lack of in personam jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had in personam jurisdiction over Raver to grant injunctive relief | Raver was a nonparty; service and jurisdiction were lacking | Appearances and proceedings related to sale implied consent to court power | In personam jurisdiction lacking; injunctive relief reversed |
| Whether Raver waived objections to personal jurisdiction or service | Raver failed to move to dismiss or timely raise defenses | Raver’s appearance and objections related to the sale should be construed as consent | Waiver not found; defenses preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Glover, 60 S.D. 270 (S.D. 1932) (action commenced; jurisdiction arising from proper service)
- Matter of J.W.W., 334 N.W.2d 513 (S.D. 1983) (special circumstances of jurisdiction in parental rights matter)
- Miles, 2003 SD 34, 660 N.W.2d 233 (S.D. 2003) (voluntary appearance may establish jurisdiction; distinguishable facts)
- Ross, 504 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2007) (receiver cannot attain in personam jurisdiction by notice absent proper service)