Opinion ID: 1599022
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the issue of defamation.

Text: In reviewing the trial court's order granting summary judgment, we premise our decision on the principle that affirmance of such a judgment is proper if there exists any basis which would support the trial court's ruling. Uken v. Sloat, 296 N.W.2d 540 (S.D.1980). As mentioned earlier, the burden of proof is on the movant to show clearly that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Koch, supra . The nonmoving party opposing a motion for summary judgment must present specific facts which demonstrate the existence of genuine, material issues for trial; mere allegations are not sufficient to preclude summary judgment. Mackintosh v. Carter, 451 N.W.2d 285, 286 (S.D.1990). South Dakota law requires that [e]very person is obligated to refrain from infringing upon the right of others not to be defamed. SDCL 20-11-1. Weiszhaars claim that the Bank failed in this obligation. The affidavit of Leroy Weiszhaar sets forth that between October 19, 1988 and October 21, 1988, the Bank, through its authorized agents, began making false defamatory statements to the effect that the Weiszhaars unlawfully and fraudulently sold cattle mortgaged to the Bank. Weiszhaar's affidavit recites that these false and defamatory statements were published and became widely circulated in the Leola, South Dakota area, and that one of the Bank agents called Sheriff Kuntz to request that he watch the Weiszhaar Farm for any unauthorized removal of livestock. As was clear from the deposition of Thomas J. Heibel, Chairman of the Board of the Bank, he is the source of these alleged false and defamatory statements, all of which apparently resulted from his confusing Weiszhaar with a different Leroy. When questioned at his deposition about the matter, he stated: A (By Mr. Heibel): Well, in a small town I'm sure you know about it, everybody has coffee or breakfast in the morning and we were sitting there and Elmer Schook mentioned that he had been to Pipestone, Minnesota with Leroy the day before. And I didn't say anything, I just listened. I'm usually not too wide awake in the morning anyway. I just listened and I assumed it was Leroy Weiszhaar. His daughter is married to one of the Weiszhaar boys. Q (By Mr. Johnson): Schook's daughter? A Yes. . . . . . Q When you heard that did you get upset a little bit? A No, not particularly. I didn't say anything. I just went back to the bank and I informed [Bank officers Boyd D. Hopkins and Duane Podoff]. When Heibel was asked whether he repeated that rumor to anybody or in front of other bank employees, he stated: The girls wouldn't pay any attention. Boyd Hopkins, the Bank's President, wrote Pipestone Auction Market to advise them that the Weiszhaars were customers of the Bank who may have or may yet sell cattle at your barn, and that we have a lien ... on their cattle. The Bank's accusations appear to be unfounded because the LeRoy that Elmer Schook referred to was not Leroy Weiszhaar, but another man named LeRoy Schook. Such statements have the appearance of being slander per se. SDCL 20-11-4(1). A question of fact arises as to whether such statements harmed the Weiszhaars in respect to their business. SDCL 20-11-4(3). In viewing this evidence most favorably to the Weiszhaars and resolving all reasonable doubts against the Bank, it is clear that the evidence presented was sufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact which should have gone to the jury. Groseth International Inc. v. Tenneco, Inc., 410 N.W.2d 159, 172 (S.D.1987); Bego v. Gordon, 407 N.W.2d 801, 812 (S.D.1987). Clearly the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Summary judgment on the issue of defamation should therefore be reversed and remanded for trial. Affirmed in part, reversed in part. MILLER, C.J., WUEST and SABERS, JJ., and MORGAN, Retired Justice, concur. AMUNDSON, J., not having been a member of the Court at the time this action was submitted to the Court, did not participate.