Opinion ID: 1913200
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trial court placed the burden of proof on the Hospital.

Text: Ambiguous statutes granting tax exemptions are to be strictly construed in favor of the taxing power. Lutherans Outdoors v. Bd. of Equalization, 475 N.W.2d 140, 145 (S.D.1991); Matter of State & City Sales Tax Liability, 437 N.W.2d 209, 211 (S.D.1989). Cognizant of this burden, Judge Kean, in his second sentence at trial, stated to counsel for Hospital, Mr. Walz, you may proceed then because you carry the burden of proof at this time. Nevertheless, Board alleges the trial court did not hold Hospital to the legally required burden. If so, Board should have either objected or, at the close of Hospital's case, motioned for a directed verdict. Rather, Board made no effort to document any dispute to the burden until this appeal was filed. Generally, error must be brought to the attention of the trial court as soon as it is apparent and failure to object at a time when the court can take corrective action precludes appellate review. Matter of Adoption of Baade, 462 N.W.2d 485, 488 (S.D.1990); In re A.I., 289 N.W.2d 247, 249 (S.D.1980). As the party claiming error, Board had the responsibility to insure that a record was made. SDCL 15-26A-48; Sioux Enterprises v. Tri-State Refining, 456 N.W.2d 774, 777 (S.D. 1990). Regardless, Board's brief provides nothing to vouch for its claim and the trial record supports the opposite conclusion. As we are not definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court erred in distributing the burden of proof, we find no reason to address this issue any further. Wolff v. Royal Ins. Co. of America, 472 N.W.2d 233 (S.D.1991); In re Estate of Hobelsberger, 85 S.D. 282, 181 N.W.2d 455 (1970).