Opinion ID: 2048513
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The trial court improperly converted the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment.

Text: Under SDCL 15-6-12(b)(5), where one moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim and matters outside of the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in § 15-6-56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by § 15-6-56.  SDCL 15-6-12(b). (Emphasis added.) There is nothing in this record [2] which reflects that the trial court advised or notified the parties of its intent to convert the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. We have clearly stated that such notice is mandatory. Schaub By Schaub v. Moerke, 338 N.W.2d 109 (S.D.1983); Olson v. Molko, 86 S.D. 365, 195 N.W.2d 812 (1972). Obviously, the reasonable opportunity language in SDCL 15-6-12(b) is designed to prevent unfair surprise to the parties. Dayco Corporation v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 523 F.2d 389 (6th Cir.1975). As stated by Wright and Miller: It is important that the court give the parties notice of the changed status of the motion and a `reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.' In this way no one will be taken by surprise by the conversion. Once the proceeding becomes one for summary judgment, the moving party's burden changes and he is obliged to demonstrate that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact and that he is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1366 (1969) (footnotes omitted). The trial court, having failed to follow these mandatory steps, erred in converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment.