Court Opinion

ID: 9592725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:16:34.551411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:05.791727
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion the majority is deciding this case on an evidentia-ry issue which was never presented to the trial court; nor was it properly raised before this court on appeal.

AS TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT

At trial, the testimony regarding decedent’s oral declarations was admitted without objection. The issue of admissibility was never raised before the trial court. In fact, the trial judge, in his ruling from the bench, stated:
“The only evidence which describes # 6 as a will is hearsay testimony by the beneficiaries and Mr. Bergeson. Number one, hearsay testimony is objectionable because of its inherent unreliability. And number two, the testator’s intent concerning some ambiguity in the will must be proven by other than oral representations of the testator, according to SDCL 29-5-3.”
The trial court’s statements were incorporated into appellees’ findings and conclusions, which the trial court ultimately adopted. Of greater importance, the appellant’s proposed findings and conclusions do not register any objection to the trial court’s disregard of decedent’s oral statements or to the court’s interpretation of SDCL 29-5-3.

*577
AS TO PRESENTING THE ISSUE TO THIS COURT

The evidentiary issue addressed by the majority opinion was never specifically raised as an issue by appellant. The primary focus was always on the testamentary character of the written instrument.
A review of appellant’s docketing statement reveals the evidentiary issue was never mentioned. The docketing statement simply presents the issue as: “Does a holographic writing which otherwise meets the requirements for a holographic will, exhibit testamentary character, thereby entitling such document to be admitted for probate?” In giving reasons for not requesting a settlement conference, appellant also wrote in the docketing statement: “A legal question concerning testamentary character is presented for the court. The Supreme Court can review such question without giving difference (sic) to the Trial Court’s conclusions.” (Emphasis added.)
Similarly, appellant’s brief lists only one legal issue: “Does the handwritten, dated, and signed writing of the decedent have the necessary testamentary intent and character to constitute an holographic will?” Admittedly, there was some discussion about the evidentiary question in both parties’ briefs. It was especially covered in appellant’s reply brief. However, as noted above, the eviden-tiary question was never raised as an issue by appellant, and the primary focus has always been on the testamentary character of the instrument.
I respectfully suggest that the parties and their attorneys never envisioned we would decide this case upon the evidentiary issue propounded by the majority. Under our settled law, we do not decide cases based on issues not preserved below or which are not properly raised on appeal. Fullmer v. State Farm Ins. Co., 514 N.W.2d 861, 866 (S.D.1994); Hawkins v. Peterson, 474 N.W.2d 90, 95 (S.D.1991) (“We will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.”); In re Luhrs Trust, 443 N.W.2d 646, 651-52 note * (S.D.1989) (a gratuitous issue raised by the dissent, which was not argued at the trial level or briefed before the appellate court, should not be considered on appeal); Bottum v. Herr, 83 S.D. 542, 548, 162 N.W.2d 880, 883 (1968) (a party “cannot now assert error on matters not considered by or ruled upon in the trial court”); Schull Constr. Co. v. Koenig, 80 S.D. 224, 229, 121 N.W.2d 559, 561 (1963) (“A reviewing court will not consider matters not properly before it or matters not determined by the trial court.”) (citations omitted). The reasons for such judicial restraint are obvious. Even though I may find the result of the majority writing quite compelling, I fear it is setting a bad precedent and treading on dangerous ground.
I am authorized to state that Justice AMUNDSON joins in this dissent.