Court Opinion

ID: 9676459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:24:58.500635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:48.259653
License: Public Domain

MORGAN, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent from the majority view wherein it is determined that, by a “doctrine of redundancy,” the provisions of SDCL 21-47-8 are inapplicable to a mortgage executed under the provisions of SDCL ch. 21-49, the Short Term Redemption Act. The majority cites us to no supporting authority for the application of this doctrine.
With respect to the application of the doctrine of redundancy to this case, assuming that the Bank is proceeding under SDCL ch. 21-49, I find it noteworthy that SDCL 21-49-13(1) provides, in pertinent part: “The notice [of default] may be given concurrently with any notice of the mortgagor’s right to cure existing defaults.” (Emphasis added.) This statute appears to refer to the rights under SDCL 21-47-8, thus avoiding the so-called doctrine of redundancy.
I am authorized to state that Justice SABERS joins in this dissent.