Opinion ID: 2229662
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Bienert had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.

Text: Bienert asserts that the election was void and, therefore, injunctive relief is proper to prevent the school district from issuing the bonds. As we held in Sorensen v. Rickman, 486 N.W.2d 259 (S.D.1992), and S.D. Board of Regents v. Heege, 428 N.W.2d 535 (S.D.1988), injunctive relief can only be issued when the party seeking said relief is without a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law. Although Bienert admits that a plain and adequate remedy existedcontesting the election under SDCL chap. 12-22he asserts such a remedy could not provide [Bienert] with the speedy relief necessary to immediately restrain the School District from proceeding to issue general obligation bonds. Ironically, the exact opposite is true. SDCL 12-22-5 requires an election contest to be commenced within 10 days of the disputed election. Under SDCL 12-22-8, the summons and complaint must be answered within 10 days of service, or less than 10 days if the proceedings are expedited. Instead, Bienert filed his action after 10 days had passed; and by seeking an injunction, he gave School District more time30 daysto answer. SDCL 15-6-12(a). Bienert's actions confirm that speed was not the utmost concern. An election contest was indeed the speedy remedy. Rather than supporting the claim that he is without remedy at law, Bienert cites Gooder v. Rudd, 38 S.D. 197, 160 N.W. 808 (1916); Klaudt v. City of Munno, 72 S.D. 1, 28 N.W.2d 876 (1947); and Hurley v. Coursey, 64 S.D. 131, 265 N.W. 4 (1936), as authority permitting the use of injunctions to void election results. In Gooder, the appellant seeking injunctive relief to void a special election claimed the petition calling for the election lacked the requisite number of qualified signatures. Deciding if an election could be legally held based upon a defective petition, this Court held, [W]here the petition filed is insufficient in law ... such officials are without any jurisdiction to hold such an election; and such election, if held, together with all proceedings had thereunder or pursuant thereto, are wholly void. Years later, we reaffirmed this decision in Klaudt holding, Failure to file a valid petition rendered the election void[.] This Court also permitted equitable relief in Hurley, holding that judges cannot be elected to a court that had not been legally established. These three precedents all adhere to the premise that equitable relief is proper in prohibiting enforcement of an election result where the election itself could not legally have been held. When a petition is invalid, no authority or jurisdiction exists to hold an election. The same holds true for electing people to positions that do not legally exist. Bienert's argument that this election should be voided due to alleged faulty notice and ballot does not rise to the same level as an invalid petition because here, a legal basis for holding the election existed. Instanter, Bienert asks this Court to ignore the fact that he purposely avoided a plain and adequate remedy at law simply because he did not find the remedy speedy enough to suit him. As the remedy of an election contest under SDCL chap. 12-22 readily existed, we affirm the trial court's denial of the injunction.