Court Opinion

ID: 9723042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:01:09.996558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:44.167103
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Justice
(concurring specially).
Although I concur, I believe it is important to point out (as did the trial judge in his memorandum opinion) that this case must be distinguished from a typical foreclosure or execution of judgment proceeding which is made for the benefit of a creditor. In those circumstances, recovery of a sheriff’s costs and expenses are clearly permitted. See, e.g., SDCL 16-18-38.
I do feel compelled to observe that I find it interesting, if not perplexing, that although defendants recognized that the bank was an indispensible party and joined it through third-party pleadings, they did not join or seek to join the Goehrings, whose personal property was the subject of the action. It would seem that they were also indispensible parties. Even though they may not have a great deal of money, they obviously had some personal property worth seeking, since according to the record here the sheriff spent some $5400 in having it removed from the real property.