Opinion ID: 1303484
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: whether sully buttes school district was entitled to summary judgment as to the agar school district and board of education on the defense of champerty or maintenance.

Text: Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. SDCL 15-6-56(c). Our task on appeal is to determine only whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied. If there exists any basis which supports the ruling of the trial court, affirmance of a summary judgment is proper. Garrett v. BankWest, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 833, 837 (S.D. 1990) (citations omitted). The trial court properly denied summary judgment to Sully Buttes School District on the grounds of champerty or maintenance. Sully Buttes School District is a nonparty to the alleged agreement among Agar School District, the Board of Education, and various taxpayers for payment of attorney's fees and costs incurred by the taxpayers. As a nonparty to the agreement, Sully Buttes may not assert champerty as a defense against the taxpayers, the original owners of the cause of action. See 14 Am.Jur.2d Champerty and Maintenance § 15 (1964). [T]he fact that litigation grows out of a champertous contract is no defense in a collateral proceeding against one who is not a party to the contract. Id. The broader doctrine of maintenance is likewise inapplicable to this case. It has been said that maintenance involves the act of improperly, for the purpose of stirring up litigation and strife, encouraging others either to bring actions or to make defenses that they have no right to make. Id. at § 2. Improper motives are essential to establishing a maintenance claim. A bargain for maintenance, even though the bargain includes an agreement to pay the expense of litigation, is not illegal if entered into from charitable motives or without an intention to make a profit, or in order to determine a question on which a right or duty of the maintaining party depends; but if such a bargain is entered into for the purpose of annoying another, it is illegal. Id. at § 9, note 13 (citing Restatement, Contracts § 541). Improper motives are not apparent in this case. Sully Buttes School District does not claim that the plaintiff taxpayers lack standing to challenge the tax adjustment or that their suit is frivolous or brought in bad faith. Additionally, neither Agar School District nor the Board of Education stand to profit from this action, since only declaratory relief is sought. Finally, considering the status of society and conditions now prevailing in this country, to transfer a right of action or to maintain the suit of another without having any direct or contingent interest in it will by no means necessarily produce mischief or oppression. Indeed, it may be that such assistance or maintenance will have a tendency to secure rights and promote the ends of justice. Id. at § 1 (1964).