Court Opinion

ID: 9730724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:21:50.843052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:08.896055
License: Public Domain

MORGAN, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in part and dissent in part because I believe that the debt for the home section owed to appellant’s parents does come within the contingent liabilities under Wallahan v. Wallahan, 284 N.W.2d 21 (S.D. 1979).
The existence of the debts, which the majority stresses, is not the criterion under *804Wallahan. Indeed, without the existence of the debt, the question of its contingency would never be appropriate. That appellant admitted the existence of the debt is not controlling. There is no evidence that the parents ever expected to be repaid and, in fact, they had refused every attempt at repayment. That fact speaks far louder to me than appellant’s testimony that he intended to repay the debt. How would he do so when there is no evidence that repayment would ever be accepted?
The debt to the corporation, which according to the record was owned by two of appellant’s uncles, is different. Although the record does not reflect any attempt to repay the loan, there was no outright refusal to accept repayment, and I agree with the majority that it does not fall within Wallahan. Appellee argues on appeal that it is outlawed, but that is a different proposition that apparently was not considered by the trial court, so we may not make any determination on that.
I am authorized to state that WOLL-MAN, Chief Justice, joins in this concurrence in part and dissent in part.