Opinion ID: 1281009
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Double Damages.

Text: The trial court concluded College's conduct was oppressive and invoked double damages under SDCL 60-11-7. SDCL 60-11-7 provides: In any action for the breach of an obligation to pay wages, where a private employer has been oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious, in his refusal to pay wages due to the employee, the measure of damages is double the amount of wages for which the employer is liable. Oppressive is defined as unreasonably burdensome: unjustly severe, rigorous, or harsh. Websters Third New International Dictionary, 1584 (1976). The findings of fact entered by the trial court certainly disclose a contract dispute between two parties. In reviewing these findings, there are no facts presented that College's conduct was unjustly severe, rigorous, or harsh when College was merely exercising its right to have a judicial determination made on the obligation under the contract. This court has consistently held that the conclusions of law, such as number seven on double damages, must find support in the findings. Kindle, 509 N.W.2d at 283; Centrol, Inc. v. Morrow, 489 N.W.2d 890, 894 (S.D.1992); Knodel v. Board of Cnty. Comm'rs, 269 N.W.2d 386, 390 (S.D.1978). A review of these findings does not provide that support. Therefore, the imposition of double damages in this case is inappropriate. South Dakota has long recognized the principle that law and equity abhor a forfeiture. Beitelspacher v. Winther, 447 N.W.2d 347, 351-2 (S.D.1989); cf. Restatement 2d Contracts, § 229 (Excuse of a Condition to Avoid Forfeiture). To deny Heidi Baldwin her bonus at this juncture would result in an impermissible denial of a right to what she was told she had earned. Therefore, we affirm Baldwin's entitlement to $1,600 in commissions and remand for damages consistent with this opinion. In light of our holding above, we need not reach the other issues in this case. MILLER, C.J., KONENKAMP, J., and WUEST, Retired J., concur. SABERS, J., dissents. GILBERTSON, J., not having been a member of the Court at the time this case was submitted, did not participate.