Court Opinion

ID: 9527358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:29:52.090825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:45.086196
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Justice
(concurring special-. ly)-
I agree fully with the majority opinion that the trial court lacked authority to vacate the divorce decree upon the stipulation of the parties and that in the circumstances of the case before us the doctrine of estop-pel should not be applied against appellee. *208There may be cases, however, in which one who has stipulated to the entry of judgment may be estopped from later assailing that judgment. As we held in Warren Supply v. Duerr, Pliley, Thorsheim Development, 355 N.W.2d 838, 840 (S.D.1984):
One who enters into a stipulation or agreement for judgment or who has taken a position in judicial proceedings may not later challenge the judgment or take a position inconsistent with his earlier position.
We pointed out that one of the exceptions to the application of the doctrine of estop-pel in such a case is where the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment stipulated to. See Bernard v. Bernard, 74 S.D. 449, 54 N.W.2d 351 (1952).*

 In Warren Supply we erroneously cited Losee v. Hettich, 74 S.D. 461, 54 N.W.2d 353 (1952), for this proposition. The citation should, of course, have been to Bernard v. Bernard, supra.