Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Arlene AGER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Linda Ager COYLE, individually and as Power of Attorney of Fred Ager, now deceased; and William Coyle, individually and as Power of Attorney of Fred Ager, now deceased, Defendants and Appellees.
ORDER DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF JUDGMENT OF AFFIRMANCE
This Court having considered the briefs filed in the above-entitled matter, the appellate record, and the parties’ oral arguments, concludes that pursuant to SDCL 15-26A-87.1(A)(1), Arlene's claims are precluded by the doctrine of res judicata as set forth in In re Estate of Geier, 2012 S.D. 2, 809 N.W.2d 355 and In re Estate of Smeenk (Smeenk II), 2024 S.D. 23, 6 N.W.3d 250. The issue underlying the circuit court's denial of Arlene's petition to remove Linda as personal representative in probate file #23-15 is identical to the issue raised in the current civil file #23-124 underlying the present appeal, and the circuit court's ruling in probate file #23-16 was a final order entered in an unsupervised probate proceeding which was immediately appealable under Geier.1 Arlene sought appellate review of this order in appellate file #30501, but this Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Our dismissal operates as a final judgment for the purposes of res judicata under Smeenk II, despite the ongoing probate proceedings and subsequent order for supervised administration. Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that a judgment affirming the order of dismissal entered by the circuit court in civil file #23-124 be entered forthwith, and it is further noted that,
This Court did not consider and expresses no opinion on Arlene's claim that the circuit court erred by failing to rule on her motion for leave to amend her complaint. The circuit court took no action on the motion, dismissing the case in its entirety before the hearing scheduled on the motion. Accordingly, there is nothing for this Court to review.
FOOTNOTES
1. See also In re Estate of Ager, 2024 S.D. –––– n.2, ––– N.W.3d –––– n. 2 (noting that Arlene could not revive her Geier-type appeal from file #30501 through a notice of review in an appeal by Linda of a post-supervised-administration, non-final order that we ultimately dismissed).
Steven R. Jensen, Chief Justice
PARTICIPATING: Chief Justice Steven R. Jensen and Justices Janine M. Kern, Mark E. Salter, Patricia J. DeVaney and Scott P. Myren.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: #30645
Decided: September 04, 2024
Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)