Opinion ID: 1677477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Choice of Remedies

Text: Tucek argues that the trial court is obligated to allow her a choice of either rescission or monetary damages as her remedy for fraud. Her argument is somewhat unclear in that the trial court did precisely what she is requesting. After the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the trial court sent a letter to the parties setting forth its proposed ruling. [1] The letter stated that Tucek could elect either rescission or monetary damages. The letter provided: 1. If the plaintiff desires to elect rescission as her remedy, summary judgment will not be allowed as there are disputed facts. 2. If the plaintiff desires to proceed as the pleadings recite, summary judgment will be granted as to the allegation of fraud or deceit as no evidence exists to prove fraud, Garrett v. BankWest, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 833, 847 (S.D.1990), but not as to the allegations of negligence. I do not find this statement by the trial court to be inconsistent with our previous holdings. A victim of fraud has an election of remedies available to him. Holmes v. Couturier, 452 N.W.2d 135, 137 (S.D.1990). He can either rescind the contract, restore what he received and recover back what he paid, or he may affirm the agreement and sue for monetary damages. Id.; see also O'Connor v. King, 479 N.W.2d 162, 165 (S.D.1991). Tucek was given her choice of remedies and elected to affirm the agreement and sue for monetary damages. Tucek's election, however, resulted in summary judgment.