Surat v. America Township, Brule County Board of Supervisors
2017 SD 69
| S.D. | 2017Background
- The America Township Board designated a seven-mile stretch including 264th Street (between SD Hwy 50 and 352nd Ave.) as "minimum maintenance" under SDCL 31-13-1.1 at a January 6, 2015 board meeting.
- Surat Farms, LLC and family (Surat) use that segment for primary, year-round access to residence and large farming operations; alternative routes were less safe and less practical.
- Surat appealed the Board’s action to circuit court; the trial was held de novo; evidence included Surat testimony on regular use and Township testimony that did not quantify farm/commercial travel.
- The circuit court found the Board acted arbitrarily, concluding the road was used far more than "occasionally or intermittently" and reversed the Board, ordering removal of minimum-maintenance signs and remanding other roads for reconsideration.
- On appeal, the Township raised standing, sovereign immunity, and whether the circuit court had authority to reverse; the Supreme Court affirmed arbitrariness but held the circuit court should have remanded to the Board for rehearing rather than directly reversing and ordering sign removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal Board decision | Surat was an "aggrieved person"—the road is primary access, used frequently, and Surat incurred costs to maintain it | Record allegedly silent on aggrievement; statute requires pleading pecuniary harm | Surat had standing: interrogatory answers and testimony showed aggrievement and expenditures, satisfying SDCL 8-5-8 |
| Sovereign immunity bar | Legislative waiver exists: SDCL 8-5-8 allows appeals from township board decisions by any "person aggrieved" | Designation is discretionary and immune under sovereign immunity principles | Sovereign immunity does not bar suit because Legislature authorized appeals under SDCL 8-5-8 |
| Standard of review for Board's minimum-maintenance designation | Board failed to consider required statutory factor (whether road is used only occasionally/intermittently); circuit court may reverse arbitrary decisions | Township argued courts cannot micromanage road maintenance; decision is discretionary policy not quasi-judicial | Board’s action was not quasi-judicial; arbitrariness standard applies; the Board acted arbitrarily by failing to consider commercial/farm travel evidence required by SDCL 31-13-1.1 |
| Remedy available to circuit court | Plaintiff sought reversal and removal of minimum-maintenance designation | Township argued court should defer or remand to Board for further consideration | Court erred by reversing and ordering sign removal; appropriate remedy is remand to Board for rehearing consistent with standard (affirmed arbitrariness finding but reversed remedy) |
Key Cases Cited
- South Dakota Dep't of Game, Fish & Parks v. Troy Township, 900 N.W.2d 840 (S.D. 2017) (clarified when de novo vs. arbitrariness review applies for nonjudicial entities)
- Goos RV Ctr. v. Minnehaha Cty. Comm’n, 764 N.W.2d 704 (S.D. 2009) (de novo phrasing means court determines question anew)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrariness standard: failed to consider important aspects or offered implausible explanations)
- Willoughby v. Grim, 581 N.W.2d 165 (S.D. 1998) (township discretion in how roads are maintained; courts cannot dictate details)
- Truman v. Griese, 762 N.W.2d 75 (S.D. 2009) (sovereign immunity is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Hansen v. S.D. Dep't of Transp., 584 N.W.2d 881 (S.D. 1998) (discusses discretionary acts and immunity)
- Coyote Flats v. [unnamed], 596 N.W.2d 351 (S.D. 1999) (agency action must have relevant and competent evidence to support it)