Opinion ID: 1679113
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: improper collateral attack

Text: Secondly, the trial court held that this was an improper collateral attack upon the final probate decree. The court held that the attack was improper under SDCL 30-23-38. [6] Once a court has ... issued the decree of distribution, the decree is subject to revision only upon appeal or in some proceeding that constitutes a direct attack. Miller v. Thode, 372 N.W.2d 459, 462 (S.D.1985) (citing Bechard v. Union County, 71 S.D. 558, 27 N.W.2d 591 (1947); Black v. Unknown Creditors, 83 S.D. 119, 124, 155 N.W.2d 784, 787 (1968)). This claim is not a collateral attack on the probate decree. Bollinger is not arguing that her claim should have been honored by the estate. She is pursuing a separate cause of action for reimbursement from the testamentary trust. Therefore, this claim is not an improper collateral attack.