GPNA Tip of the Week: Land Ownership
Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson & Ashmore, LLP attorney Stacy Hegge writes a brief summary of the latest South Dakota Supreme Court case in Moeckly v. Hanson SD 45. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the circuit court’s determination that there was no joint tenancy in real property owned by a husband and wife, and so upon the wife’s death, the individuals identified in the wife’s will were entitled to the wife’s interest in the property.
GPNA Tip Of The Week: Alimony
If you are currently paying alimony and you believe your obligation ends upon the occurrence of a certain event, such as retirement or reaching the age of social security eligibility, consult your attorney before you stop making those alimony payments. Once the event occurs, you may still need the court’s permission to end or reduce the alimony payments.
Lamar Advertising of South Dakota v. City of Rapid City et al., 2020 SD 30
In Lamar Advertising of South Dakota, LLC v. City of Rapid City et al, the South Dakota Supreme Court addressed whether a City’s agreement to amend its ordinances in exchange for the dismissal of a lawsuit is unlawful.
Helleberg v. Estes, 2020 SD 27
Attorney Stacy Hegge writes the South Dakota Supreme Court Summary for Hellberg v. Estes. In Helleberg v. Estes, 2020 S.D. 27, a dispute arose between property owners regarding, among other things, the use of an easement road. Helleberg contended that the road crossing her property could only be used by Estes, an adjacent landowner and developer of the subdivision, for the limited purpose of installing and repairing water lines. Estes, however, claimed that he could use the easement road for any reason.
Sedlacek v. Prussman
Attorney Ali Tornow writes the South Dakota Supreme Court summary on Sedlacek v. Prussman. This is an appeal from a denial of a motion for a mistrial by Sedlacek. Sedlacek sued Prussman for injuries sustained while working at a job site operated by Prussman.
Hallberg v. South Dakota Board of Regents 2019 SD 67
Attorney Lisa K. Cagle writes the South Dakota Supreme Court Summary on Hallberg v. South Dakota Board of Regents 2019 SD 67. In this case, a university terminated an employee after she confronted and reported the university for possible ethical violations in its counseling center. The employee, Hallberg, filed suit directly with the circuit court claiming that she had been unlawfully retaliated against for reporting the violations.