Court Opinion

ID: 9515318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:55:42.106724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:27.992833
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
[¶ 20.] I dissent because it is clear to me that the Board was attempting an end run around the electorate of Corson County by retaining an attorney of its own choosing to perform duties statutorily assigned to the state’s attorney.
[¶21.] The majority opinion makes much of the fact that the contract contains a general reference to the set of statutes governing state’s attorneys and thereby concludes that “there was insufficient evidence in the record from which the trial court could determine the extent of civil legal representation intended by the ambiguous contract.” I disagree because the contract is anything but ambiguous.
[¶ 22.] The Board has consistently argued that state law neither restricts nor limits its ability to hire additional attorneys. The contract provides that Bogue would supply “all civil representation regarding the County as may be requested, in state, federal and tribal courts[.]” (emphasis added). The contract does not distinguish between cases wherein the duly elected state’s attorney is capable of representing the county and those in which he is not. The contract also failed to distinguish between cases venued within the county, and those located outside the county; a distinction clearly made by the Legislature. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record to support the majority’s apparent position that the one-year con*704tract represents a $25,000 retainer to Bo-gue for the limited purpose of providing additional legal “advice” to the Board if requested, and for representing the county in the event that it becomes involved in complicated litigation or the action is ven-ued outside of Corson County. The intent of the contract is clear, the Board attempted to displace Hanks by entering into a $25,000 contract with an unelected attorney to perform the same or similar functions as the duly elected state’s attorney. We should affirm the trial court in all respects.
[¶ 23.] Both the Board and the majority opinion rely on Grant County v. Jones as supporting authority. However, this case is distinguishable: a retiring state’s attorney was retained as counsel in order to represent the county in pending litigation. Grant Comity, 43 S.D. at 8-10, 177 N.W. at 122. The new state’s attorney attended the trials himself yet did not object to the representation until after the conclusion of the litigation when he attempted to recover the moneys paid to the retired state’s attorney for his legal services. Id. This Court held that since the new state’s attorney failed to object to the representation, he constructively consented to the representation. Id. Here, Bo-gue’s representation is not for the limited purpose of representing the County in a specific legal matter, rather it is for “all civil representation regarding the County as may be requested, in state, federal and tribal courts[.]” There is no question that Hanks is objecting to the representation.
[¶ 24.] The majority opinion, on its own, calls into question Hanks status as a state’s attorney. However, since Hanks has not been disqualified as Corson County State’s Attorney and the County has not requested Hanks to be judicially disqualified on all civil matters, the County has waived these arguments. State v. Mesa, 2004 SD 68, ¶ 15, 681 N.W.2d 84, 87 (“Failure to raise an issue before the trial court can constitute waiver of the issue.”); State v. Dufault, 2001 SD 66, ¶7, 628 N.W.2d 755, 757 (“Issues not advanced at trial cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time on appeal.”).
[¶25.] In fact, this matter has been stipulated away by the county. A stipulation dated May 5, 2003 between the parties provided in part:
1. Curtis W. Hanks was elected States Attorney for Corson County, South Dakota in [the] 2000 general election.
2. Curtis W. Hanks currently serves as Associate Justice on the Standing Rock Tribal Supreme Court.
3. Corson County, South Dakota is regarded as partially being within the exterior boundaries of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.
Exhibit 1. Another stipulation by the parties of the same date provided in part as follows:
1. Curtis W. Hanks has not been disqualified as Corson County States Attorney, nor has the County requested Curtis W. Hanks be judicially disqualified from representing Corson County, South Dakota on civil matters.
Exhibit 3. Despite these stipulations, the majority opinion, on its own, raises the matter of eligibility under SDCL 7-16-18 which was not argued, briefed, or presented to the trial court or this Court. So much for the honored principle that we will not seek reasons to reverse.
[¶ 26.] For all of these reasons, I would affirm the circuit court’s holding that the County lacked legal authority under these circumstances to enter into the contract *705for these services and therefore the contract is void.