Opinion ID: 1679113
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: issues

Text: Did the trial court err by refusing to remove Eldredge as trustee of the Henrietta Sandquist Trust? Bollinger claims the trial court erred by refusing to remove Eldredge as trustee of the testamentary trust. She argues that Eldredge has not performed her duties as trustee because of her status as secondary beneficiary. Bollinger failed to submit proposed findings or objections to Eldredge's proposed findings of fact in a timely manner. As a result, our scope of review is limited. See SDCL 15-6-52(a). The late filing of proposed findings or objections to an opponent's proposed findings limits this court's review on appeal to `whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law and judgment.' Shoop v. Shoop, 460 N.W.2d 721, 724 (S.D.1990) (quoting GMS, Inc. v. Deadwood Social Club, Inc., 333 N.W.2d 442, 443 (S.D.1983)); accord Burke v. Lead-Deadwood Sch. Dist. No. 40-1, 347 N.W.2d 343 (S.D.1984). `[T]he facts are considered conclusive and may not be challenged.' Shoop at 724 (quoting Massey Ferguson Credit Corp. v. Bice, 450 N.W.2d 435, 444 (S.D. 1990)). The following findings support the trial court's conclusion retaining Eldredge as trustee: