Court Opinion

ID: 9666819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:28:08.091861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:32.745051
License: Public Domain

WUEST, Justice
(concurring in result).
Although I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion, I must disagree with the rationale utilized as the basis for the decision. Whether Judge Johnson abused his discretion is not an issue in this case, and should not serve as a reason for affirming the result. Because reasons are not required in either an informal request or in an affidavit requesting a change of judge, the better grounds for affirming this result should be based in the statutorily mandated review of the affidavit based on waiver and timeliness.
SDCL 15-12-21.1 provides the initial step that must be taken when a party seeks to have a judge disqualified; * that is, the party must first make an informal request. The statute makes clear that the party making the request need not give a reason, and the opposing party may not contest the request. Id. Likewise, the judge need not give a reason for either a grant or denial of the informal request.
If the informal request is denied, the party seeking the change of judge may file an affidavit with the clerk of courts. SDCL 15-12-30. The form and contents of the affidavit are prescribed by statute, including the directive that it is not necessary to state a “ground or reason” for the belief that a “fair and impartial trial” cannot be had before the *81assigned judge. SDCL 15-12-26. The affidavit is then reviewed by the “presiding judge of the circuit court or in his absence or disqualification as the judge sought to be changed, the senior judge of the eircuit[.]” SDCL 15-12-32. That reviewing judge — in this case, Judge Moses — is to review the affidavit; and if “it is determined that the affidavit is timely and that the right to file the affidavit has not been waived or is not otherwise legally defective, shall assign some other circuit judge or magistrate of that circuit as is appropriate to preside in such aetion[.]” Id. Thus, it was Judge Moses’ duty to review the affidavit as to (1) timeliness; (2) waiver; and (3) other legal defect. Judge Moses had no duty to review any reason for the request of change of judge, or to determine whether Judge Johnson had abused his discretion in denying the informal request — no reasons are necessary. The memorandum opinion and order reveal that the basis for Judge Moses’ decision to refuse the request for a change of judge was that the affidavit was not timely filed.
First, it is clear that Hickmanns waived any right to a change of judge by submitting to the jurisdiction of the court. SDCL 15-12-24; Fullmer v. State Farm Ins. Co., 514 N.W.2d 861, 865 (S.D.1994); Tri-State Refining and Investment Co. v. Apaloosa Co., 452 N.W.2d 104, 108 (S.D.1990); In re Establishing Certain Territorial Electric Boundaries Within S.D., 318 N.W.2d 118, 120-21 (S.D.1982). This action was filed on July 1, 1992; and Judge Johnson had ruled on numerous motions during the pendency of the litigation.
Hickmanns argued that waiver was not applicable because of the special circumstances involving the appointment of a new judge. Even if this argument is accepted (which I do not), Judge Moses correctly determined that the affidavit was not timely filed. This matter was scheduled for a trial to the court on September 9-10, 1993. SDCL 15-12-27(2)(a) provides that in actions set for trial to the court without a jury, an affidavit for change of judge must be filed “not less than five days before the date set for trial.” Id. Applying our rules on computation for time as set out in SDCL 15-6-6(a), Judge Moses determined that the affidavit was not filed within the five days allowed by statute. The affidavit for change of judge should have been filed by September 1; but it was not filed until September 3, 1993.
I would affirm on this basis.
MILLER, C.J., joins this special writing.

 SDCL 15-12-21.1 provides:
Prior to filing an affidavit for change of judge, the party or his attorney shall informally request the judge or magistrate who, in the ordinary course, would preside at the hearing or trial, to disqualify himself. He shall not be required to state his reasons, but may if he desires. Informally shall mean by letter, oral communication, or dictating it into the record in open court or chambers; however, the opposing parties should receive copies of any letters, or be apprised of any communications to the court, but cannot contest the request. If the judge or magistrate grants the request, he shall forthwith notify the presiding judge, who shall assign the case to some other judge or magistrate. If the judge refuses the request, he shall forthwith notify in writing the parties or their attorneys. Writing may include a letter, order, or dictation into the record.

Id.