Court Opinion

ID: 9514512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:50:05.299488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:18.502881
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
[¶ 8.] I dissent for all of the reasons set forth in my special writing in Ripple II, 1997 SD 135, ¶¶ 20-23, 572 N.W.2d at 444-45. I respectfully reiterate that the majority continues to base its decision on an issue not properly before us and which was never presented to the trial court.
[¶ 9.] What has occurred since the decision in Ripple II confirms the validity of the position articulated in my earlier dissent, i.e., we should not address these issues sua *627sponte. The suggested pitfalls of such a practice have proven true. The petition for rehearing persuasively explained how the parties had never been given the opportunity to brief the issue upon which the majority had decided the case and that the facts did not support the majority’s holding. Fortunately, the members of this Court agreed to grant rehearing. Then, after learning more of the facts and having the opportunity to consider relevant arguments from counsel (which I submit is an exercise more appropriately performed by a trial court), the majority was forced to modify its earlier holding.
[¶ 10.] Further, I réspectfully suggest that the present majority holding does not go far enough. Because the issue of service was never presented to the trial court by counsel for the estate of Maurine H. Ripple, we should not undertake to do so sua sponte. What other pitfalls await us in that regard? Where does it end?
[¶ 11.] I would affirm the trial court’s decision in its entirety.