#24060-a-JKM 

2007 SD 23 

IN THE SUPREME COURT 

OF THE 

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

* * * * 

BRIDGEWATER QUALITY 

MEATS, L.L.C., Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

LEONARD HEIM and JEANNIE 

HEIM, d/b/a J & L BISON RANCH, Defendants and Appellants. 

* * * * 

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF 

THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

McCOOK COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA 

* * * * 

HONORABLE RONALD K. MILLER 

Judge 

* * * * 

ROGER R. GERLACH Attorney for plaintiff 

Salem, South Dakota and appellees. 

JEFF ADEL of 

Bridgman and Adel Attorneys for defendants 

Wessington Springs, South Dakota and appellants. 

* * * * 

CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS 

ON JANUARY 8, 2007 

 OPINION FILED 03/07/07 
-1- 

#24060 

MEIERHENRY, Justice 

[¶1.] This action arises out of two separate agreements involving the 

slaughter and sale of buffalo. The first agreement involved Leonard and Jeannie 

Heim, d/b/a J&L Bison (collectively referred to as Heim) and Jason Sparling 

(Sparling), d/b/a Gourmet Bison and the second involved Sparling and Bridgewater 

Quality Meats, LLC (Bridgewater). Pursuant to these agreements, Heim delivered 

buffalo to Bridgewater for slaughtering over a two year period and on some 

occasions received the processed meat. In July of 2003, Bridgewater filed a small 

claims action alleging that Heim owed $7,986.58 for meat products received from 

Bridgewater. Heim removed the case to circuit court and counterclaimed seeking 

over $42,000.00 for sixteen buffalo he had delivered to Bridgewater. A jury trial 

was held on December 19, 2005, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of 

Bridgewater and against Heim on his counterclaim. Heim appeals and we affirm. 

FACTS

[¶2.] The following facts are not in dispute. Heim operated a buffalo ranch 

in Jerauld County, South Dakota and entered into an agreement with Sparling, 

owner and operator of Gourmet Bison (hereinafter referred to as “the HeimSparling Agreement”). Heim agreed to purchase young buffalo, feed them, and take 

them to Bridgewater, a meat processor, for slaughter. In addition to the slaughter 

cost, Sparling agreed to pay $2.30 per pound hot hanging weight for the buffalo. 

Sparling would then take the meat for resale. In December of 1999, Heim made the 

first delivery of buffalo to Bridgewater and Sparling paid Heim pursuant to the 

terms of their agreement.
#24060 

-2-

[¶3.] Sparling subsequently began experiencing financial difficulties and 

approached Ilan Parente (Parente), owner of Bridgewater, regarding Sparling’s 

obligations under the Heim-Sparling Agreement. Sparling explained that he was 

no longer financially able to pay Heim under their agreement. He asked Parente to 

continue slaughtering the buffalo Heim delivered to Bridgewater, but then also 

purchase the meat from Heim for the same price provided under the Heim-Sparling 

Agreement. Parente agreed that Bridgewater would continue to accept deliveries 

from Heim, but only agreed to pay Heim the current market rate of $1.90 per hot 

hanging weight for the buffalo meat, rather than the $2.30 per hot hanging weight 

as set forth in the Heim-Sparling Agreement. Accordingly, Sparling agreed that he 

would pay Heim the difference. 

[¶4.] At what point Heim began making deliveries pursuant to Sparling’s 

agreement with Parente (hereinafter referred to as “the Sparling-Parente 

Agreement”) is disputed. Heim testified that he began delivering buffalo to 

Bridgewater pursuant to the Sparling-Parente Agreement beginning with his 

February 2000 delivery of buffalo. Heim testified as follows: 

Q. The first animals you ever got paid by Bridgewater Quality 

Meats was for a load you delivered in March of 2000; correct? 

. . . 

 

A. He was supposed to buy a load that I delivered in February. 

Q. What do you mean supposed to? 

A. When Jason Sparling couldn’t pay me for the buffalo, Jason 

and Ilan (Parente) had a conversation. 

Q. Wait. Were you part of that conversation between Jason and 

Parente? 

A. No. 

Q. You weren’t there? 

A. No. 

. . . 
#24060 

-3-

 

Q. Did you take a load of buffalo there in February of 2000? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Well, who told you to take them there? 

A. Ilan (Parente). 

Q. Do you know who ended up with the meat? 

A. No. 

Q. Do you know if Jason Sparling ended up with that meat? 

A. No. I don’t know who ended up with the meat of any of the 

buffalo that I took to Bridgewater. 

[¶5.] Parente denied receiving a delivery of buffalo from Heim in February 

of 2000. Parente testified that he had searched every record in Bridgewater’s plant 

to try to locate documentation of a transaction with Heim on February 21, 2000 and 

that “there is no record for February 21 of 2000 for bison brought into Bridgewater 

Quality Meats by Leonard Heim.” Parente claimed that, according to his records, 

the first delivery Heim made per the Sparling-Parente Agreement was in March of 

2000. Parente testified as follows: 

Q. Now you kind of distinguished the first load which was 

March 13, 2000, from the loads that were brought in after 

that. 

A. Correct. 

Q. Why is that? 

A. The initial discussion that I had was not with Leonard Heim 

nor did I ever have a discussion with Leonard Heim about 

how many animals he had, what he expected to be paid for 

them, et cetra. I did not know Leonard Heim prior to that 

date that he brought them into my facility. The only person I 

knew at the time was an individual by the name of Jason 

Sparling. 

Q. So this load of buffalo, the first load on March 13, 2000, how 

did they end up at that facility? 

A. Jason Sparling contacted me, and he and I had been 

conducting business at the time for several months and 

informed me that he was unable to hold up his end of an 

agreement that he had with a family member of his, namely 

Leonard Heim, and if I would be kind enough to assist him in 

slaughtering those animals. 

 
#24060 

-4-

Parente further testified that after the first day of trial it struck him that the 

buffalo may have come into Bridgewater’s facility listed under Gourmet Bison, 

Sparling’s d/b/a. After checking his records for Gourmet Bison, he found a record 

indicating Gourmet Bison had delivered sixteen buffalo on January 12, 2000. 

However, he did not produce any record for Gourmet Bison indicating a February, 

2000 delivery. 

[¶6.] The parties continued their business agreement into 2001 until the 

buffalo market declined. Because of the extreme drop in the market, Parente 

informed Heim that he would no longer be able to afford to pay Heim for buffalo. 

However, Parente and Heim agreed that Heim would continue to deliver buffalo to 

Bridgewater. In return, Heim would receive buffalo meat for resale purposes and 

Parente would pay off his account gradually. Parente eventually zeroed out Heim’s 

account. 

[¶7.] Heim and Parente then entered into another agreement wherein Heim 

was allowed to purchase buffalo meat from Bridgewater on credit. Heim agreed to 

satisfy this account with buffalo he was currently raising. However, Heim failed to 

deliver the buffalo as agreed, which led Bridgewater to file this action. 

[¶8.] After a three day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of 

Bridgewater for $7,986.58 for the amount of meat Heim had received from 

Bridgewater for resale purposes. The jury found against Heim on his counterclaim. 

Heim timely filed a new trial motion alleging that he had discovered new evidence 

consisting of records from the South Dakota Animal Industry Board (Animal 

Industry Board), a state agency that provides inspection services to small meat 
#24060 

-5-

processing and slaughter establishments,1 which indicated that Heim had delivered 

buffalo to Bridgewater on or around February 21, 2000. After twenty days had 

passed, Bridgewater subsequently filed a motion for an order stating that the time 

to decide the new trial motion had lapsed pursuant to SDCL 15-6-59(b). The trial 

court issued an order, which “determined that the time for a new trial has lapsed 

statutorily.” Heim appeals and raises one issue. 

Did the trial court err when it failed to order a new trial based 

on Heim’s post-trial discovery of a livestock delivery record? 

ANALYSIS 

1. Standard of Review 

[¶9.] The procedure for granting or denying a motion for a new trial is set 

forth in SDCL 15-6-59(b) as follows: 

The court shall make and file the order granting or denying such 

new trial within twenty days after the service and filing of such 

motion, unless for good cause shown, the court files an order 

 

1. The Animal Industry Board’s website contains the following information 

regarding its purpose: 

The Animal Industry Board is specifically charged with 

protecting the health of the animal industry of South Dakota 

under SDCL 40-3. Every aspect of our activities in regulatory 

operations takes into account this responsibility. Certain 

diseases have control and eradication programs such as 

brucellosis, pseudorabies, pullorum, etc. Other diseases are 

monitored for threats to the various industries. Requirements 

for inspections, identification, facilities, licensing, testing 

programs, and others constantly weigh the risk a threat may 

present versus the benefits of regulations to the industries and 

the people of South Dakota. 

 Sam D. Holland, DVM, South Dakota Animal Industry Board, 

http://www.state.sd.us/aib/meatinspection.htm. 
#24060 

-6-

within said twenty days extending the time for entering such 

order. If a motion for new trial has not been determined by 

the court and no order has been entered by the court 

extending the time for such ruling within twenty days 

from the date of service and filing of such motion, it shall 

be deemed denied.2

SDCL 15-6-59 (emphasis added). 

[¶10.] We review specific grants or denials of a motion for a new trial under 

the abuse of discretion standard. Schmidt v. Royer, 1998 SD 5, ¶9, 574 NW2d 618, 

621. As a matter of first impression, we must decide whether to apply the abuse of 

discretion standard when reviewing the statutory denial of a motion for a new trial 

because of the trial court’s failure to rule upon the motion pursuant to SDCL 15-6-

59(b). The statute states that when the trial court fails to pass upon a motion for a 

new trial within twenty days, such motion, “shall be deemed denied.” SDCL 15-6-

59(b). Thus, according to the plain meaning of the statute, the trial court is 

presumed to have exercised its discretion by letting the time-lapse serve as a denial 

of the motion just as if the trial court had affirmatively granted the motion. See In 

re Shepard’s Estate, 34 CalRptr 212, 214 (CalApp 1963) (stating that the merits of a 

motion for a new trial denied by operation of law may be reviewed upon appeal in 

the same manner as if expressly denied by the court); Strauch v. Bieloh, 60 P2d 582, 

584 (CalApp 1936) (stating that the abuse of discretion standard applies with equal 

force when the motion for a new trial is automatically denied for failure to pass 

upon the motion). Therefore, the abuse of discretion standard applies when the 

 

2. SDCL 15-6-59(b) has no federal counterpart. 
#24060 

-7-

motion for a new trial is automatically denied under the provisions of SDCL 15-6-

59(b). 

2. Bridgewater’s Jurisdictional Arguments 

[¶11.] Bridgewater argues that Heim cannot appeal the statutory denial of 

his motion for a new trial because the trial court did not affirmatively rule on the 

merits. Therefore, Bridgewater contends that this Court cannot address the issue 

for the first time on appeal. Bridgewater cites no supporting authority for this 

argument and we find its rationale unpersuasive. If we accepted Bridgewater’s 

rationale, every statutory denial of a motion for a new trial pursuant to SDCL 15-6-

59(b) would evade appellate review. Furthermore, SDCL 15-26A-6, which governs 

the time limits for filing an appeal with this Court, contemplates the situation 

where the trial court fails to take action on a motion. The relevant portion of the 

statute provides: 

The running of the time for filing a notice of appeal is 

terminated as to all parties by a timely motion filed in the 

circuit court by any party pursuant to §15-6-59 or § 15-6-50(b), 

or both, and the full time for appeal fixed by this section 

commences to run and is to be computed from the attestation 

and filing of an order made pursuant to such motion or if the 

circuit court fails to take action on such motion or fails to 

enter an order extending the time for taking action on 

such motion within the time prescribed, then the date shall 

be computed from the date on which the time for action by the 

circuit court expires. 

SDCL 15-26A-6 (emphasis added). If SDCL 15-6-59(b) were interpreted as 

Bridgewater suggests, the language in SDCL 15-26A-6 referencing the trial court’s 

failure to take action on a motion would be rendered meaningless. “[O]ur method of 

statutory interpretation requires that we find a meaningful understanding of a 
#24060 

-8-

statute where possible.” Bon Homme Co. Comm’n v. AFSCME, 2005 SD 76, ¶22, 

699 NW2d 441, 452. Accordingly, the trial court’s failure to take action on Heim’s 

motion for a new trial did not affect the availability of appellate review. 

[¶12.] On the other hand, Bridgewater argues that this Court may not review 

Heim’s motion for a new trial because SDCL 15-26A-9 provides that this Court may 

only review post-judgment motion rulings if they were “timely presented to the 

[trial] court.”3 Bridgewater contends that because Heim’s motion was statutorily 

denied on timeliness grounds, a review of the motion would violate SDCL 15-26A-9. 

Bridgewater fails to appreciate the fact that Heim’s motion for a new trial was 

timely presented to the trial court. It was the trial court itself that failed to take 

action within the statutorily prescribed time limit. Accordingly, Bridgewater’s 

argument is without merit. 

3. Newly Discovered Evidence 

[¶13.] Heim argues that the trial court’s statutory denial of a new trial was 

an abuse of discretion. Heim argues that the record from the Animal Industry 

Board is newly discovered evidence that Heim delivered buffalo to Bridgewater on 

February 21, 2000, a material disputed fact. We review the statutory denial of a 

motion for a new trial under the abuse of discretion standard. See supra ¶10. 

[¶14.] When a party seeks a new trial under SDCL 15-6-59(a) based on newly 

discovered evidence, the party must “demonstrate first that it is newly discovered 

evidence and secondly that it could not, by reasonable diligence, have been 

 

3. The full text of SDCL 15-26A-9 provides: “When reviewing an order denying 

a new trial, the Supreme Court may review all matters properly and timely 

presented to the court by the application for a new trial.”
#24060 

-9-

determined and produced at the trial and that it would be believed by the jury and 

would produce a different result. City of Sioux Falls v. Missouri Basin Mun. Power 

Agency, 2004 SD 14, ¶16, 675 NW2d 739, 744. 

[¶15.] At trial, Heim presented a handwritten note that he had prepared 

dated February 21, 2000, which listed the buffalo he had delivered to Bridgewater 

on that date. The note included information such as the animal tag number, the 

animal carcass weight, and whether the buffalo was kosher .4 Conversely, Parente 

testified that after thoroughly checking his records, he had no evidence that Heim 

made a delivery on that date. Parente further testified that he had contacted the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and was told that there was no record of 

such delivery. Heim claims that the first time he became aware that the USDA or 

any other agency kept records of animal deliveries to Bridgewater was when 

Parente testified at trial. 

[¶16.] Only after the completion of the jury trial did Heim contact the USDA, 

which contacted the Animal Industry Board. According to the Animal Industry 

 

4. Heim testified that he had prepared the handwritten note that was admitted 

into evidence. However, it is unclear how Heim obtained the information 

contained within the note. At trial, Heim claimed to have received the 

information from Bridgewater either through a phone call or a kill sheet he 

received, which he claimed was illegible. The illegible kill sheet was never 

admitted into evidence. Heim testified as follows: 

 

Q. So you prepared [the handwritten note]? 

A. I got the information from Bridgewater. Yes, I prepared this. I must not 

have been able to read the one that was sent to me. 

Q. Did you have the one that was sent to you? 

A. No. Sometimes I called down and got the information. That’s how 

 I found out which ones koshered and which ones didn’t. I have no 

 way of knowing that on my own. 
#24060 

-10-

Board’s record, it tested sixteen buffalo on February 25, 2000, which had been 

delivered by Heim to Bridgewater. The tag numbers of these animals matched the 

tag numbers Heim had recorded in his handwritten note as having been delivered 

to Bridgewater on February 21. Heim argues that the Animal Industry Board’s 

record is newly discovered evidence and that the trial court abused its discretion in 

not granting his motion for a new trial. 

[¶17.] “The burden rests on the moving party to show there was no lack of 

diligence precluding earlier discovery. A new trial applicant will be denied relief, if 

the same effort to find the evidence expended after trial, would have produced it 

before trial.” State v. Gehm, 1999 SD 82, ¶15, 600 NW2d 535, 540-41 (citing United 

States v. Bransen, 142 F2d 232, 235 (9thCir 1944)); see also George v. Estate of 

Baker, 724 NW2d 1, 12 n8 (Minn 2006) (stating that “[a] motion for a new trial 

upon the ground of newly discovered evidence is properly denied for lack of diligence 

of the moving party where the same diligence which led to the discovery of the new 

evidence after trial would have discovered it had such diligence been exercised prior 

thereto.”). 

[¶18.] In April of 2001, the parties began discussing Heim’s allegation that he 

delivered buffalo in February 2000. Bridgewater instituted this lawsuit in July of 

2003. Heim discovered the records from the Animal Industry Board between the 

December 2005 trial and the January 16, 2006 Motion. The records from the 

Animal Industry Board could have easily been obtained during the time period 

between 2001 and 2005. Besides Heim’s lack of knowledge that these records 

existed at the time of trial, Heim offers no explanation as to why these records could 
#24060 

-11-

not have been discovered earlier. Knowing that he needed to prove that he had 

delivered buffalo to Bridgewater in February of 2000, it is reasonable to conclude 

that Heim could have checked sources such as the USDA and the Animal Industry 

Board, two agencies that are required by law to monitor, test, and regulate the meat 

processing industry. 

[¶19.] Notwithstanding the lack of diligence, Heim fails to show that the 

newly discovered evidence would have been believed by the jury and would have 

produced a different result. City of Sioux Falls, 2004 SD 14, ¶16, 675 NW2d at 744. 

Even if the record from the Animal Industry Board were considered, it is still 

unclear if the buffalo were delivered pursuant to the Heim-Sparling or the SparlingParente Agreement. There was conflicting testimony as to whether the first load of 

buffalo delivered under the Sparling-Parente Agreement occurred in February or 

March of 2000. Whether the introduction of the record from the Agricultural Board 

would have changed the verdict is difficult to ascertain. The test is whether “there 

is a reasonable probability that the newly discovered evidence would probably 

produce a different result at a new trial.” State v. Steele, 510 NW2d 661, 664 (SD 

1994) (quoting State v. Willis, 396 NW2d 152, 154 (SD 1986)); see also Gehm, 1999 

SD 82, ¶18, 600 NW2d at 542 (stating that “it is not enough to ask if the verdict 

would possibly be different. The question is would it probably be different.”). 

While the record from the Animal Industry Board may have indicated that Heim 

delivered buffalo to Bridgewater in February of 2000, it did not answer the ultimate 

question as to whether Bridgewater was obligated to pay Heim for the delivery. 

Only under the Sparling-Parente Agreement could Bridgewater have been liable for 
#24060 

-12-

payment to Heim and the record of the Animal Industry Board is silent on that 

issue. Although the newly discovered Animal Industry Board record may lend 

support to Heim’s claim, we can not conclude that the jury would have reached a 

different verdict had this evidence been presented. 

[¶20.] “New trial motions based on newly discovered evidence request 

extraordinary relief; they should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and 

then only if the requirements are strictly met.” Gehm, 1999 SD 82, ¶15, 600 NW2d 

535, 540. Considering the three to four year period in which Heim could have 

discovered the record from the Animal Industry Board, the lack of showing that the 

verdict probably would have been different, and our deferential standard of review, 

the statutory denial of Heim’s motion for a new trial was not an abuse of discretion. 

[¶21.] Affirmed. 

[¶22.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS, KONENKAMP, and 

ZINTER, Justices, concur.