Court Opinion

ID: 9845247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:17:29.459858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:57.019029
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring specially).
I write specially to attempt to confine the rule of this case to the facts of this case. Bad facts tend to make bad law. In my view, it would be a shame if this case becomes the method by which aggrieved parties unilaterally extend the time for appeal from an adverse decision.
Plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant corporation but failed to present *129sufficient evidence of individual liability. Therefore, plaintiff failed to pierce the corporate veil and the trial court so held. No appeal was taken and the judgment was final. Yet, some 17 months later, motion papers are filed and 29 months later the judgment is opened to provide individual liability. Whatever happened to res judica-ta and stare decisis?
This situation is somewhat similar to that of Gold Pan Partners, Inc. v. Madsen 469 N.W.2d 387 (S.D.1991), where I wrote:
The fact that the judgment from which Julie seeks relief was not entered against Julie, but in her favor and upon her petition, is also troubling. To read Rule 60(b) broadly enough to grant a party relief from a favorable judgment which the party previously pursued opens wide the door to abuse of the rule by those who simply change their mind about what they want after it is too late.
Id. at 393 (citations omitted, emphasis in original omitted).