Court Opinion

ID: 9514967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:52:46.918707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:23.307620
License: Public Domain

AMUNDSON, Retired Justice
(concurring in result).
[¶ 23.] I concur in the result because I would sua sponte find there is no jurisdiction.
This court generally has a duty to determine whether the trial court has jurisdiction over a matter as a condition precedent to its right to decide the issues involved. Long v. Knight Const. Co., Inc., 262 N.W.2d 207 (S.D.1978); Sioux City Boat Club v. Mulhall, 79 S.D. 668, 117 N.W.2d 92 (1962). Even if none of the parties have challenged jurisdiction, this court will, sua sponte, determine whether the lower court had jurisdiction.
Hardy v. West Central Sch. Dist., 478 N.W.2d 832 (S.D.1991) (citations omitted).
[¶ 24.] There can be no jurisdiction as Mr. Chavis is not an aggrieved party.
[W]e think [‘any person aggrieved’] can only include such persons when they are able affirmatively to show that they are ‘aggrieved’ in the sense that [ ... ] they suffer the denial of some claim of right either of person or property....”
Tri County Landfill Association, Inc., v. Brule County, 535 N.W.2d 760, 763 (S.D.1995)(internal citations omitted)(ellipses and brackets in original). Chavis has no personal interest in the commissioners’ decision regarding the funds received from other counties. As the majority says, Chavis is the full-time state’s attorney for Yankton County. Chavis has a duty to represent the petitioner in all involuntary commitment proceedings and to defend all challenges to such. Chavis has made no showing of entitlement to the proceeds and therefore is not an “aggrieved party” under SDCL 7-8-27.