Opinion ID: 1607506
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Both Insurer and Insured argue the lack of jurisdiction of Broker's appeal because Broker failed to file a statement of issues within the ten days required by SDCL 15-26A-50. [2] Broker counters that Insured provided no authority for its argument, thereby waiving it. We have held that failure to timely file and serve the notice of appeal is jurisdictionally fatal to the validity of an appeal, but Broker notes that under SDCL 15-26A-4, failure to take other steps does not affect the appeal's validity and does not necessarily require dismissal. Insured did cite authority in the form of the statutory language requiring filing of a statement of issues found in SDCL 15-26A-50. Supporting authority is not necessarily confined to just case law, but appropriate statutory law may be acceptable as well. Thus, we consider Insured's argument to be preserved. On the merits, Broker is correct that only failure to timely serve and file the notice of appeal is jurisdictionally fatal to an appeal's validity, [3] while lesser omissions may be subject to sanctions. To decide whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction in this case, we look to the intent behind SDCL 15-26A-50. As Broker points out, the purpose of the requirement that a statement of issues be prepared is to allow an appellee the opportunity to order additional parts of the transcript when the appellant has failed to order a complete transcript. SDCL 15-26A-4. Here, there was no transcript made of the summary judgment hearings, so we fail to see how Insurer or Insured were prejudiced. Furthermore, unlike the appellants in State Highway Commission v. Olson, 81 S.D. 237, 132 N.W.2d 927 (1965), and Meade Education Association v. Meade School District 46-1, 399 N.W.2d 885 (S.D.1987), Broker did file a statement of issues, although somewhat belatedly. This court's concern in both Olson and Meade [4] was that the failure to file the statement of issues precluded the court from making a meaningful review of the issues. Therefore, since Insurer and Insured were not prejudiced and the statement of issues was filed, we see no reason for imposing the drastic remedy of dismissing Broker's appeal.