Court Opinion

ID: 9719068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:41:52.073694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:03.423852
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree with the majority that the Bank is mot entitled to benefit from its misrepresentation. Therefore, the Bank is not entitled to any collateral, and the mortgage against Laverne’s real property should be cancelled. Laverne is entitled to be restored to the same position she occupied prior to the Bank’s improper action. However, she is not entitled to a windfall. Cancellation of her pre-existing indebtedness would constitute a windfall and she is not entitled thereto. Therefore, we should make it clear that the Bank may pursue a money judgment for the amount of the pre-existing indebtedness. Otherwise, problems similar to those that existed in Bank of Hoven v. Rausch, 449 N.W.2d 263, 267 (S.D.1989) (Sabers, J., dissenting), will exist here.