Court Opinion

ID: 9515162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:54:19.845653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:25.770446
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring specially).
[¶27.] I agree that the default judgment should be vacated based on excusable neglect. It should have been vacated by the trial court without the time, trouble and expense of an appeal. In fact, this default judgment should not have been granted in the first place because:
1.The summons and complaint did not name the proper party defendant, Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Aberdeen.
2. The admission of service was not signed by a proper person to receive service of process. SDCL 15 — 6— 4(d)(2) (providing that if the action is against a foreign private corporation, service shall be “on the president or other head of the corporation, secretary, cashier, treasurer, a director or managing agent thereof’).
3. There was no testimony under oath by competent witnesses as to damages. See Meier v. McCord, 2001 SD 103, ¶ 13, 632 N.W.2d 477, 484 (stating that although the trial court has discretion under SDCL 15-6-55(b) whether to conduct hearings to determine the amount of damages, when there is little evidence presented regarding damages, such hearing is advisable).
4. The correct defendant had a valid defense to liability and damages.