Opinion ID: 1956134
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Evidence Is Sufficient.

Text: As the trial court's findings of fact are presumed correct, we will not seek reasons to reverse the trial court. Marnette v. Morgan, 485 N.W.2d 595 (S.D.1992); Lytle v. Morgan, 270 N.W.2d 359 (S.D.1978). Under the clearly erroneous standard, this Court must be left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Selle v. Pierce, 494 N.W.2d 634 (S.D.1993). Due to Shippen's repeated voluntary contacts with Parrott, plus a three-year period with no sexual contacts, we cannot justly describe their entire relationship as a tortious one. Conversely, the evidence does not support the angelic claims of Parrott. In fact, the trial court found that [Parrott's] testimony, for the most part, is false. This Court gives due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses. O'Connor v. King, 479 N.W.2d 162, 164 (S.D.1991). As for the sexual advances made during 1987, they survive under settled law. Although Parrott maintains the acts were consensual, he admits that the two alleged assaults occurring in 1987 were within the statutory period and may be determined by the factfinder. Finding the evidence supports both Shippen and the award, no mistake has been made. Parrott additionally argues that the trial court erred in permitting punitive damages because the evidence did not meet the clear and convincing standard. SDCL 21-1-4.1. We explained this standard in Flockhart v. Wyant, 467 N.W.2d 473, 475 (S.D.1991), stating: SDCL 21-1-4.1 requires the trial court to apply a clear and convincing evidence standard to determine, before any such claim may be submitted to discovery or to the jury, whether there is a reasonable basis to believe there has been a willful, wanton or malicious conduct on the part of the party claimed against. That does not establish a clear and convincing evidence standard but merely requires clear and convincing evidence to show a reasonable basis. The clear and convincing language merely modifies the reasonable basis language to make a prima facie showing that punitive damages may be in order. To resolve the issue of sufficiency of evidence, we examine the record to determine only if there is competent and substantial evidence to support the verdict. Id. at 478; Hoffman v. Louis Dreyfus Corp., 435 N.W.2d 211, 213 (S.D.1989). Although we have held that the torts occurring prior to January 3, 1986 are not actionable, they remain credible in supporting the trial court's finding that Parrott's conduct over the past 16 years is such that it evidences that degree of willful and wanton misconduct that demonstrates an evil, malicious, wanton and depraved state of mind. Such a finding highlights the modus operandi, so to speak, of Parrott and gives credence to Shippen's assertions. Trial court expressly held that Parrott's testimony, for the most part, was false and successfully impeached. Having heard this testimony, the trial court was in a better position to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Under the Hobelsberger rule, the findings on the two surviving causes of action, were not clearly erroneous. In re Estate of Hobelsberger, 85 S.D. 282, 181 N.W.2d 455, 459 (1970). Therefore, inasmuch as compensatory and punitive damages were lumped together on causes of action dating back to 1975, we reverse the damage award and remand to the trial court for a reassessment of compensatory damages for those torts suffered during the statutory period noted herein, particularly those two acts during 1987. Furthermore, the trial court is to determine the amount of punitive damages for those causes of action occurring subsequent to January 3, 1986. SDCL 21-3-2; Flockhart at 475-76. Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part. MILLER, C.J., and WUEST, J., concur. SABERS and AMUNDSON, JJ., dissent.