Opinion ID: 901023
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: summary judgment insufficiency of evidence of damages

Text: [¶ 25.] Maulis asks this Court to review whether there is anything in the record to support evidence of damages caused by any acts or omissions on his part. Proof of service of such notice of review is present in the Supreme Court clerk's file. SDCL 15-26A-22. Maulis, as appellee, has complied with all statutory prerequisites, and this issue is properly before the court. Yet, Ruth did not file a reply brief to respond to the notice of review issue. SDCL 15-26A-62. [¶ 26.] It is troublesome to the Court that no reply was filed given Maulis' properly filed notice of review. We are denied a proper developed briefing and appellate argument. By failing to treat Maulis' notice of review issue, Ruth has acted contrary to statute [SDCL 15-26A-62] and we could therefore deem that [s]he conceded the issue. Drier v. Great American Ins. Co., 409 N.W.2d 357, 361 (S.D.1987). In Drier, 409 N.W.2d at 361-362, the Court concluded that absent statute, defendants are not entitled to a reversal as a matter of right, and in exercise of our discretion, the court may review the matter and resolve any doubt, as to what the disposition should be. [¶ 27.] While no specific values were given, Ruth, in an affidavit in response to summary judgment, outlined her damages. She wrote that if she had been properly represented, she could have stayed in the partnership and would not have had to sell her income producing assets; she could have negotiated a contract more favorable to herself, both as to price, payment provisions and interest rate; or if negotiations failed, she could have terminated the partnership and sold the land on the open market, at a time when land prices in the area were increasing rapidly, instead of at the appraisal price as of the time of her husband's death. [¶ 28.] While we elect not to deem the issue conceded, we need not address this issue at this time since the trial court did not address the issue because it granted summary judgment on other grounds. This Court has often said that an issue not raised at the trial court level cannot be raised the first time on appeal. Action Mechanical v. Deadwood Historic, 2002 SD 121, ¶ 50, 652 N.W.2d 742, 755. And, more recently, this Court stated that it will ordinarily decline to review issues not properly presented to the trial court. Estate of Gaspar v. Vogt, Brown & Merry, 2003 SD 126, ¶ 15, 670 N.W.2d 918. In the present case, the issue was raised and properly presented below, but the trial court's decision did not address this issue. Since we have partially reversed summary judgment on the issue of the statute of limitations, we need not decide this issue now. This issue is better left to the trial court, subject to appellate review once a trial court has made a decision. This issue is remanded to the trial court for further review.