Court Opinion

ID: 9577338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:33:58.172906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:23.303725
License: Public Domain

HERSRUD, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I agree with the special concurrence with reference to the one-year statute of limitations as to SDCL 15-6-60(b)(3) and that the appellant is not entitled to have the judgment vacated under the provisions of SDCL 15-6-60(b)(4). I cannot agree with the reference to SDCL 15-6-60(b)(6) that there is not ample reason to justify relief from the operation of the judgment as to the minor children of the decedent.
This wrongful death claim was settled by hospital counsel appearing before the court alone. The minors were not represented in any manner. They had a real interest, having lost their mother as a result of a lethal overdose of medication. The hospital counsel settled the case with the husband, who was without counsel and who was under the pressure of hospital bills and doctor bills of considerable amounts. The settlement would make it possible for him to settle these debts. As a result the settlement was designed to give each child $1,000 and the husband $10,000. One of the children was afflicted with cerebral palsy and mental retardation. To leave minors at the mercy of a debt-ridden parent before whom a debt-satisfying award is dangled is not realistic.
I believe it to be within the power and spirit of SDCL 15-6-60(b)(6) to require relief. The minors were entitled to and should have received the benefit of counsel. Legal relationships and responsibilities are not static but constantly evolving. Our courts have a responsibility to protect minors and this case proves that we cannot rely on a parent alone but must erect guidelines, if not by our courts, at least by the legislature.
I respectfully dissent.