*1 Johnson, Eklund & Rick Johnson of real estate titles stability regarding ap- Abourezk, plaintiffs and Gregory, opinion. a result as pellants. Shelley Siegel, King Wieck Rory and Aberdeen, Schütz, for defendant Barnett & aрpellee. and Judge. Haberer, Haberer, and Florence Merle Inc., Equipment, Dairy and Farm Haberer (Haber- Scherr, Carney Haberer Virgil and Haberer, HABERER, Florence Merle ers) legаl malpractice action brought Equipment, Dairy & Farm Haberer (Rice). Ha- attorney George Rice against Haberer, Carney Inc., Virgil Scherr trial to dismissed after action was Appellants, Plaintiffs remand for a We reverse and the court. jury trial. RICE, George originally sued First Bank of Defendant Haberers J. Aberdeen, (NA) Dako- Appellee. South South Dakota (Bank) ta, The circuit court and Rice. No. 17154. summary judgment to Bank on granted should have asserted ground that Haberers of South Dakota. Supreme Court allegedly against Bank for their claim money breaching agreеment to lend Argued Feb. an compulsory counterclaim. Haberers as 16, 1991. Oct. Decided decision, the circuit court’s We affirmed of action based on a held that a cause to lend customers breach of $150,000 counterclaim to Bank’s was a could original for foreclosure which and said “Nei- separately pursued, not be nor Rice served an- ther the Haberers cause of action or counterclaim to the swer complaint in the first action.” set out in the Dakota, Bank Haberer v. First compulsory Following our decision on the issue, against Rice. al- complaint their malpractice by Rice and leged legal alleged negligent monetary damages for handling relating to Rice’s of Haber- acts These affairs had affаirs. commitment and the Bank’s loan to do with rights under that enforcement of Haberers’ as well as other matters relat- commitment general representation of Haber- ing to the manufacturing up of in the start ers Rice filed an answer and business. ready certified case was object to the certificate Rice request made no readiness and deny *2 accuracy posi- trial, the of Haberers’ immediately prior to onstrates hearing aAt de court, sponte, denied Haberers’ sua that premise trial on the jury for a mand Many issues at law remain between Ha- malpractice underlying issues Bank and entitled berers and Haberers are equitable in nature even lawsuit by validity an assessment of their to though lawsuit between Haberers right properly jury. instruсted “The of The trial an action at law. Rice was by jury shall remain and shall inviolate however, underlying lawsuit held that the regard extend to all cases at law without to was bot Haberer v. controversy.” in Const. the amount estoppel, theory promissory of tomed on a jury 6. Rice contends that a art. VI § equity, and necessitated a court sounded right in not a matter of view of the fact held that Haberers The trial court trial. for cases at jury that trials are reserved right jury trial under have a to a distinguished from mat law as of S.D. Const. art. VI provisions “Legal” aspects underlying of the ters. outweigh “eq cause override ERR IN DID THE TRIAL COURT case of aspects. The Minnesota uitable” DEMAND HABERERS’ STRIKING (Minn. Aretz, A TRIAL IN THIS LEGAL FOR JURY right deals with the App.1984) CASE? MALPRACTICE supports proposition This case Rice, complaint against In thеir right may impair the that “a trial court Bank, faith, alleged that bad though underlying trial even ad- separate agreements to three breached (emphasis equitable one.” action is аn alleged breach of con- They funds. vance Olson, underlying supplied). In tract, fiduciary obligation and of breach marriage. a case for dissolution of was good faith. These of covenant of breach plaintiff sued After the trial of than Ha- were much broader-based claims attorney malpractice. The Minneso his solely against Bank berers’ jury trial was Appellаte ta Court held that estoppel, “a breach premised promissory “plaintiff’s claim assured where [was] action,” Haberer v. First of contract controlling money.” recovery оf The legal, not and were Minnesota constitution is provision Const, equitable issues. virtually identical to S.D. 6.* right Haberers were holding After that the Haberers would negligence. Rice’s on the issue of Bаnk, the Strain, prevailed against not have Tribe
Rosebud Sioux legal question of (S.D.1988) court decided the states that “in trial find- negligence. The trial court’s money Rice’s malpractice aсtion where Rice was indeed ings of fact that exists a indicate damages are claimed there respects. The of negligent a number entitling party as a matter of either conсluded, however, that Rice contends that jury trial.” underly- not recover on the Haberers could that the thrust of Ha- conceded action; negligence of Rice ing of equitable. cause underlying claim was (loss, hurt or however, Absque Injuria discloses, in a Damnum was The record negligence injury) and Rice’s harm trial court and without colloquy between the Haber- For rea- comрensable relevance. counsel, no repeatedly stated had counsel are entitled set forth Haberers asserted in the sons we many theories were in this underlying on the actions dem- A review of the pleadings. * or a civil action five-sixths art. 1 4:§ See Minn. de- proceeding, six hours’ after not less than by jury shall remain invio- The late, of liberation, legisla- verdict. The is a sufficient lаw with- and shall extend to all cases at jurors in may provide for the number of ture controversy. regard amount in A to the out provided proceeding, by parties a civil action may in all be waived prescribed by The least six members. in the manner law. have at cases legislature may provide that the hurry through our decisions must not as the as well matter Court, wanting stemming lest be found at the any, if there- damages, claim and trough knowledge, many years hence.
from.
pre-
Spontaneous
loyal support
of our
disposed
remaining errors cited are
precedent
conceptions
issue.
holding
the first
degree
a certain
should be examined with
remanded for
Reversed
skepticism only;
one cannot
*3
skepticism
degree. Do-
carry
to a foolish
HERTZ,
J.,
Acting
SABERS, J., and
bring
contempt
disap-
ing so will
about
MEIERHENRY,
Judge, concur.
Circuit
question.
Reason
proval of our belief
growth
rationalization
C.J.,
for a better
specially
HENDERSON, Acting
appellate guidеposts. With
should be our
concurs.
mind,
your
atten-
those remarks
call
having
AMUNDSON, J.,
been a
6, 1991,
tion a March
decision
Court:
the time this
of the court at
member
Bank, Sturgis v. Livestock
First W.
participate.
was submitted
(S.D.1991).
Yards, 466
853
There-
N.W.2d
Justice,
in,
Hertz, Acting
writing
Judge, for
E.W.
for
Circuit
C.J.,
Skoglund.
cited
At
MILLER,
disqualified.
a unanimous
856,
page
it is noted that
the author re-
MEIERHENRY,
Judge,
in the
States and
viewed the law
United
WUEST, J., disqualified.
modifying
Skoglund
cast a
effect оn
entirely tom asunder.
Skoglund was not
HENDERSON, Acting Chief Justice
In First
we stated:
W.
(specially concurring).
examining
development
In
of this
Although
agree
with the result found
rule, however,
note that the United
Appel-
оpinion, namely that
Supreme
has abolished the
States
Court
jury trial on their
lants are entitled to a
requirement
legal
that a
claim must not
claim,
agree
cit-
I cannot
with
Queen,
Dairy
incidental.
In
Inc. v.
be
Ap-
ing the
case
Wood,
469,
894,
82
8
369 U.S.
S.Ct.
strips
peals
in 1984.
a citation
Such
(1962),
44
held that in
L.Ed.2d
the Court
Staab,
v.
away
Skoglund
stare decisis
procedures
view of
flexible
29,
need not
312
30
We
Procedure,
Federal Rules of
Civil
authority.
on Minnesota
base this decision
legal
any
trial of
has, historically, taken a differ-
equitable
raised
in an
posture:
ent
denied, regardless
action cannot be
is
legal
presented
issues
are
whether
VI,
litigants in Article
6 of the
both
eq
characterized as “incidental” to
15-
South Dakota Constitution and SDCL
473,
at
uitable issues.
Id.
82 S.Ct.
at
6-38(a), (b).
right,
does
This
897,
279
Furthermore,
48;
this
Transp. Union Local
writer dissented in the
United
insisting
Rosebud Sioux Tribe
Corp.,
case
Rаil
881 F.2d
Consolidated
Attorney
Strain was entitled to jury
(6th Cir.1989),vacated
and remand-
$1,500,000
where he
was sued for
grounds,
ed on
U.S.
damages. This
Court refused to
(1990).
writing, as a Justice
one, trial court abused its discre- proper scope The latter herein, not
review a decision from sis-
ter state of Minnesota. alia, too, upheld lawyers people, inter a refusal of the lower court asserted, vigorously him a were entitled to trials.