Bingham Farms Trust v. City of Belle Fourche

#28650, #28658-aff in pt & rev in pt-MES
2019 S.D. 50

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

****
BINGHAM FARMS TRUST, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CITY OF BELLE FOURCHE,
a South Dakota Municipal
Corporation, Defendant and Appellee.

****

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
BUTTE COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
****
MICHAEL W. DAY
Judge

****

DAVID L. CLAGGETT of
Claggett & Dill, Prof. LLC
Spearfish, South Dakota Attorneys for plaintiff
and appellant.

KELLEN B. WILLERT of
Bennett, Main, Gubbrud
& Willert, P.C.
Belle Fourche, South Dakota Attorneys for defendant
and appellee.

****

CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
ON JANUARY 7, 2019
OPINION FILED 08/14/19
#28650, #28658

SALTER, Justice

[¶1.] Bingham Farms Trust (Bingham) objected to a special assessment lien

levied upon its property by the City of Belle Fourche (City). The circuit court

concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine Bingham’s claims

and granted the City’s motion to dismiss, but denied its request for attorney fees.

Bingham appeals the dismissal, and the City seeks review of the circuit court’s

denial of attorney fees. We reverse the circuit court’s dismissal, affirm its denial of

attorney fees, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Background

[¶2.] On August 1, 2016, the Belle Fourche City Council conducted a public

hearing to discuss, among other items, a proposed special assessment roll for

nuisance abatements. The assessment roll included an assessment in the amount

of $1,374.45 for vegetation removal at 903 Edmonds Street in Belle Fourche

(Edmonds Street property), then owned by Juanita Bowman (Bowman). During the

meeting, the Council adopted Resolution 13-2016 (the Resolution), which approved

the assessment roll.

[¶3.] The Resolution stated that “unpaid assessments will be certified and

filed with the Butte County Auditor on September 30, 2016.” The Resolution also

provided that “on October 1, 2016, assessments included in this Assessment Roll . . .

that remained unpaid . . . shall be collected . . . by the Butte County Treasurer in

accordance with procedure in SDCL 9-43, as amended.” See SDCL 9-43-105

(providing, in part, that “the assessment roll shall be delivered to the county auditor

not later than November first next following the date of approval or at the

-1-
#28650, #28658

expiration of the thirty-day period for prepayment without interest, whichever is

later[]”).

[¶4.] The Resolution was published in the Butte County Post on August 10,

2016 and Bowman had 20 days to appeal the assessment. See SDCL 9-43-96 and

SDCL 9-43-125. However, Bowman did not appeal the assessment applied to the

Edmonds Street property.

[¶5.] On January 17, 2017, Bingham purchased the Edmonds Street

property from Bowman. Bingham claims it had no notice of the special assessment

lien. The title commitment (dated November 10, 2016—prior to Bingham’s

purchase) did not show the lien. For reasons not revealed in the record, Bingham

alleges it did not receive the full title insurance policy until March 2, 2017. 1 There

are no dates on the cover letter, but the policy indicates a “date of policy” as

January 17, 2017, and reflects the City’s special assessment lien.

[¶6.] Throughout the spring and summer of 2017, Bingham attempted to

obtain further information from the City about the special assessment without

apparent success. Bingham was also unable to persuade the City to remove the lien

based upon its claim that it lacked notice of the assessment. According to Bingham,

the Butte County Treasurer would not accept its property tax payments until the

lien was paid and later published Bingham’s name on a list of delinquent taxpayers.

[¶7.] After providing the City with notice of its claim regarding the lien,

Bingham commenced this action against the City alleging slander of title, seeking a

1. Bingham relies on an envelope postmarked March 2, 2017 from Black Hills
Title that allegedly contained the title insurance policy.
-2-
#28650, #28658

declaration that the lien is invalid, and requesting removal of the lien from its chain

of title. See SDCL 3-21-2 (requiring written notice of a potential claim against a

public entity or employee within 180 days of the alleged injury). The City filed a

motion to dismiss under SDCL 15-6-12(b)(1), contending the circuit court lacked

subject matter jurisdiction because Bingham was beyond the 20-day deadline to

appeal the assessment. The City alternatively filed a motion for summary

judgment, alleging defects with Bingham’s notice of claim under SDCL 3-21-2.

[¶8.] Bingham filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, challenging the

lien under the theory that a statutory lien cannot attach to real property if it is not

recorded. Bingham alleged the City failed to record the lien by September 30, 2016,

as required by its Resolution or at any other time prior to its purchase of the

Edmonds Street property. In its summary judgment submissions, Bingham

produced a document in which the Belle Fourche City Finance Officer certified she

filed the special assessment roll with the Butte County Treasurer on September 29,

2017—over nine months after Bingham purchased the Edmonds Street property

and one year after the requirement stated in the Resolution. The City has not

disputed the accuracy of this certification or Bingham’s representations that the

special assessment roll was untimely filed.

[¶9.] At a consolidated hearing on June 18, 2018, the circuit court heard

arguments on the motions, which also included the City’s motion for attorney fees.

The court declined to consider the merits of the parties’ arguments regarding

enforceability of the lien and, instead, granted the City’s motion to dismiss in an

oral decision. The court reasoned that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because

-3-
#28650, #28658

there was no appeal within 20 days of the Resolution’s publication. The court

denied the City’s motion for attorney fees, finding that Bingham had a rational

argument for bringing the claim.

[¶10.] The parties’ submissions present two issues for review:

1. Whether the circuit court erred by granting the City’s motion
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

2. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying
the City’s motion for attorney fees.

Analysis

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

[¶11.] The narrow issue presented in this appeal requires us to restrict our

review to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. In doing so, we are not

determining the merits of the parties’ claims concerning the enforceability of the

City’s asserted lien interest. We are, instead, deciding only the threshold question

of whether Bingham’s claims can be determined by the circuit court. 2 “We review a

dismissal for lack of jurisdiction as a ‘question of law under the de novo standard of

2. A key distinction exists between dismissal for a lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. See Gould, Inc. v. United States, 67 F.3d 925, 929 (Fed. Cir. 1995);
Spruill v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 978 F.2d 679, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Do–Well
Mach. Shop, Inc. v. United States, 870 F.2d 637, 639-40 (Fed. Cir. 1989). A
dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction means that the court does not
possess the authority to hear and determine the case. A dismissal for failure
to state a claim is different, though, because it involves a determination on
the merits that tests the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claims. See Gould,
Inc., 67 F.3d at 929; see also Thompson v. Summers, 1997 S.D. 103, ¶ 5, 567
N.W.2d 387, 390 (stating that “a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) tests
the law of a plaintiff’s claim . . . ”).
-4-
#28650, #28658

review.’” Upell v. Dewey Cty. Comm’n, 2016 S.D. 42 ¶ 9, 880 N.W.2d 69, 72 (citation

omitted).

[¶12.] Our cases describe subject matter jurisdiction in fundamental terms as

“a court’s competence to hear and determine cases of the general class to which

proceedings in question belong; the power to deal with the general subject involved

in the action[.]” In re Heupel Family Revocable Tr., 2018 S.D. 46, ¶ 25, 914 N.W.2d

571, 578 (quoting Sazama v. State ex rel. Muilenberg, 2007 S.D. 17, ¶ 14, 729

N.W.2d 335, 342). Therefore, “subject matter jurisdiction is dependent only upon

the nature of the proceeding and the relief sought.” Sazama, 2007 S.D. 17, ¶ 14,

729 N.W.2d at 341. The court’s authority to act in a particular class of cases “is

conferred solely by constitutional or statutory provisions[,]” and it cannot be

“conferred on a court [or] denied to a court by the acts of the parties or the

procedures they employ.” Cable v. Union Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 2009 S.D. 59,

¶ 20, 769 N.W.2d 817, 825 (quoting Application of Koch Expl. Co., 387 N.W.2d 530,

536 (S.D. 1986)); see also United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630, 122 S. Ct. 1781,

1785, 152 L. Ed. 2d 860 (2002) (subject matter jurisdiction means the “the courts’

statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case”).

[¶13.] Here, the City’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion presented what we have termed a

facial attack to the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Hutterville

Hutterian Brethren, Inc. v. Waldner, 2010 S.D. 86, ¶ 20, 791 N.W.2d 169, 174–75.

The court did not consider matters outside of the pleadings and did not undertake

judicial fact finding to determine the jurisdictional question. See id. (distinguishing

between facial jurisdictional attacks that involve only an examination of the

-5-
#28650, #28658

pleadings and factual attacks, which may involve information or evidence beyond

the pleadings). Instead, the court’s jurisdictional decision rested upon the

undisputed fact that the special assessment lien had not been appealed and the

court’s corresponding conclusion that Bingham’s action presented only a belated

challenge to the lien’s existence. The circuit court may well be correct in its

determination that the City’s special assessment lien is not subject to collateral

attack, but it does not follow that the court lacked jurisdiction to determine

Bingham’s principal claim that the lien is not enforceable against it under the facts

as it alleges them.

[¶14.] South Dakota circuit courts are courts of general jurisdiction, 3 and we

have held that our Constitution confers broad authority upon circuit courts to “hear

all civil actions.” Heupel, 2018 S.D. 46, ¶ 25, 914 N.W.2d at 578 (quoting Christians

v. Christians, 2001 S.D. 142, ¶ 45, 637 N.W.2d 377, 386 (Konenkamp, J., concurring

specially)). Included within this broad authority is the jurisdiction to hear and

determine Bingham’s claims regarding enforceability.

[¶15.] In this regard, Bingham’s slander of title cause of action fits squarely

among a specific class of cases contemplated by our Legislature:

No person shall use the privilege of filing notices hereunder for
the purpose of slandering the title to land and in any action
brought for the purpose of quieting title to land, if the court
shall find that any person has filed a claim for the purpose only
of slandering title to such land, he shall award the plaintiff all
the costs of such action, including attorney fees to be fixed and
allowed to the plaintiff by the court, and all damages that

3. Pursuant to article V, § 1 of the South Dakota Constitution, “[t]he judicial
power of the state is vested in a unified judicial system consisting of a
Supreme Court, circuit courts of general jurisdiction, and courts of limited
original jurisdiction . . . .” (Emphasis added.)
-6-
#28650, #28658

plaintiff may have sustained as the result of such notice of claim
having been filed for record.

SDCL 43-30-9.

[¶16.] So too is there authority for circuit courts to hear cases in which

parties seek to resolve the efficacy of adverse claims appearing in the chain of title

for their real property. Although Bingham designated its second cause of action as

a claim for the “Abatement of a False Lien,” it seeks the “immediate removal of such

false lien from Plaintiff’s chain of title.” This requested relief necessarily invokes

the court’s power to quiet title and, if necessary, remove the cloud from Bingham’s

title. See SDCL 21-41-1 (providing a cause of action to clear the title of disputed

adverse liens); see also 74 CJS Quieting Title § 1 (2019) (“Generally, equity has

inherent original jurisdiction to quiet title to property . . . to seek to remove an

existing cloud from a title.”); Estate of Henderson v. Estate of Henderson, 2012 S.D.

80, ¶ 13, 823 N.W.2d 363, 367–68 (a quiet title action allows a person with an

interest in real property “to test the validity of any adverse claims of ownership of

the real property for the purpose of quieting title to the real property”).

[¶17.] Finally, Bingham’s request for declaratory relief is also within a class

of cases that may be heard and determined under express statutory authority. Our

Legislature’s enactment of the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act allows South

Dakota courts the “power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether

or not further relief is or could be claimed.” SDCL 21-24-1.

[¶18.] Constraining our review to a threshold determination of whether these

claims are included among a larger class of cases a court can hear resolves the

question of subject matter jurisdiction. The City’s primary argument contemplates

-7-
#28650, #28658

a different analysis, suggesting support from our decision in Upell. There, however,

we considered a separate jurisdictional question relating to a circuit court’s

appellate jurisdiction to review a decision by a board of county commissioners. 2016

S.D. 42 ¶ 14, 880 N.W.2d at 74. Relying upon accepted principles requiring strict

statutory compliance, we held that a party adversely impacted by a county

commission’s decision must fulfill the service requirements of SDCL 7-8-29 in order

to vest a circuit court with appellate jurisdiction. Id. ¶ 17, 880 N.W.2d at 75.

[¶19.] Here, Bingham did not even own the Edmonds Street property when

the City adopted the Resolution, and it is not trying to prosecute an untimely

appeal. It is, instead, attempting to resist the City’s effort to enforce the lien

against it and to remove the lien from its chain of title. Whether Bingham will

ultimately be successful requires an examination of the merits and is beyond the

scope of our jurisdictional inquiry.

[¶20.] It is possible, in this regard, that a difference exists between a lien’s

validity and a court’s authority to hear and determine its enforceability. Here,

Bingham asserts, among other things, that the City’s lien was not enforceable

against it because it was a good faith purchaser of the Edmonds Street property

without notice of the lien which, it claims, was caused by the City’s failure to timely

submit the assessment roll. Without determining the correctness of these claims, it

is enough to acknowledge that the concept of enforceability is a distinct area of

analysis under general principles of lien law. 4

4. The Legislature enacted substantial revisions to SDCL chapter 9-43 in 2012.
What impact, if any, these revisions have upon the merits of Bingham’s
claims can be resolved by the circuit court upon remand.
-8-
#28650, #28658

[¶21.] The City’s reliance upon SDCL 9-43-125 does not change the result.

Though the statute prevents actions “attacking the validity of the proceedings for

special assessments[,]” it only applies to challenges “up to and including the

approval of the assessment roll[.]” SDCL 9-43-125. Here, the heart of Bingham’s

claims is that irregularities and instances of statutory non-compliance after the roll

was approved resulted in a failure to register the lien which, in turn, prevents the

City’s effort to enforce it against Bingham.

[¶22.] By accepting the City’s argument and viewing Bingham’s causes of

action exclusively as a prohibited collateral attack on the lien, the circuit court

perceived the limits of its jurisdiction too narrowly. We must, therefore, reverse the

court’s determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Bingham’s

claims involve considerations which are broader than simply challenging the

creation of the lien, and the court has the authority to consider the merits of

Bingham’s argument that the lien is not enforceable against it. We express no

opinion on this question and leave its resolution for further proceedings before the

circuit court.

Attorney Fees

[¶23.] “We review a trial court’s ruling on the allowance or disallowance of

costs and attorney fees under an abuse of discretion standard.” Johnson v. Miller,

2012 S.D. 61, ¶ 7, 818 N.W.2d 804, 806 (quoting Stratmeyer v. Engberg, 2002 S.D.

91, ¶ 12, 648 N.W.2d 921, 925). “An abuse of discretion is ‘a fundamental error of

judgment, a choice outside the reasonable range of permissible choices, a decision,

which on full consideration is arbitrary or unreasonable.’” Wald, Inc. v. Stanley,

-9-
#28650, #28658

2005 S.D. 112, ¶ 8, 706 N.W.2d 626, 629 (quoting Arneson v. Arneson, 2003 S.D.

125, ¶ 14, 670 N.W.2d 904, 910).

[¶24.] The City appeals the circuit court’s denial of its motion for attorney

fees, arguing Bingham’s suit lacked merit and was “frivolous.” Under SDCL 15-17-

51:

[i]f a civil action . . . is dismissed or requested relief is denied
and if the court determines that it was frivolous or brought for
malicious purposes, the court shall order the party whose claim
. . . was dismissed or denied to pay part or all expenses incurred
by the party defending the matter, including reasonable
attorneys’ fees.

[¶25.] Having determined the court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the

merits of Bingham’s claim, the provisions of SDCL 15-17-51 do not apply, and we

hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the City’s

request for attorney fees. The City also requests an award of appellate attorney

fees, but, given our disposition, we decline to grant the City’s request.

Conclusion

[¶26.] Even if the circuit court correctly determined that it lacked subject

matter jurisdiction to consider a collateral challenge to the creation of the lien upon

the Edmonds Street property, it does have jurisdiction to determine the

enforceability of the lien against Bingham. Its decision to dismiss the case is,

therefore, reversed. Under the circumstances, the circuit court’s denial of the City’s

request for attorney fees was not an abuse of its discretion. We remand the case for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

[¶27.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KERN and JENSEN, Justices, and

SEVERSON, Retired Justice, concur.

-10-