Court Opinion

ID: 9733117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:53:54.834319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:38.532967
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Summary judgment was properly granted because the statute of limitations ran years ago. As noted in the majority opinion, Andersons’ action on fraud was barred as early as 1975 or 1976 because they had knowledge of facts which caused them to believe PCA was demanding excessive sums as early as 1969 and 1970. SDCL 15-2-13(6) and 15-2-3. This was a simple matter to prove by several different methods including: (1) request for admissions, (2) interrogatories or (3) deposition. This was a simple matter and $6,085.56 in sanctions was clearly excessive. For the Supreme Court to add sanctions of $2,128.96 for a total of $8,214.52 appears to be an abuse of our discretion. In my view, we should reduce sanctions to $4,000.00.