State v. Thomason, 2014 SD 18

Kenneth Thomason and his wife bought the Gold Town Hotel by contract for deed; Barbara Langlois (wife’s mother) lent them money beginning in 2005.
In Dec. 2005 Langlois drafted a quitclaim deed she described as security for a $50,000 loan but did not record it then; in 2006 she lent additional funds and delivered a warranty deed to the Thomasons after Bennett (seller) was paid.
In Nov. 2007 Langlois recorded the 2005 quitclaim deed and later negotiated a January 7, 2008 Letter of Intent with Thomason that stated Thomason would pay Langlois $150,000–$200,000 after a planned $350,000 loan closing.
A 2008 quitclaim deed reconveyed any interest Langlois had to Thomason and his son; Thomasons then entered a lease-to-buy-back transaction and received around $206,687 from that deal.
Langlois did not receive the promised payment; Thomason left the country; Langlois filed a complaint and Thomason was indicted for Aggravated Grand Theft by Deception (>$100,000).
At trial the jury convicted Thomason of aggravated theft by deception; he appealed, arguing insufficient evidence that he obtained "property of another." The Supreme Court reversed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence showed Thomason obtained "property of another" (> $100,000) by deception	$200,000 of proceeds from the lease-to-buy-back (per the Letter) or Langlois’ equitable interest in the Hotel were her property and Thomason obtained them by deception	Langlois never had a legally enforceable interest in the proceeds or title in Jan 2008; at most she had a security interest; without "property of another" theft element fails	Reversed: State failed to prove "property of another" — neither the $200,000 proceeds nor an equitable title meeting that definition belonged to Langlois in Jan 2008

State v. Podzimek, 779 N.W.2d 407 (S.D. 2010) (proceeds from sale are not property of creditor absent enforceable ownership or security interest that converts proceeds)
Anderson v. Aesoph, 697 N.W.2d 25 (S.D. 2005) (vendee under contract for deed holds equitable title while vendor retains legal title)
Kessler v. State, 772 N.W.2d 132 (S.D. 2009) (defaulted loans are not criminal theft by deception absent proof loans were obtained by deception)
Ziegler Furniture & Funeral Home, Inc. v. Cicmanec, 709 N.W.2d 350 (S.D. 2006) (contract interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Tarpinian v. Wheaton, 113 N.W.2d 472 (S.D. 1962) (equitable title holder can demand deed upon contract completion)
Birchard v. Simons, 240 N.W. 490 (S.D. 1932) (delivery and acceptance are essential to deed conveyance)
Hagen v. Palmer, 210 N.W.2d 164 (S.D. 1973) (delivery of deed is determined from intent shown by surrounding facts)