Court Opinion

ID: 9719246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:46:29.105795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:05.431345
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring specially).
We must continually guard against the excessive use of res judicata, especially when used to bar claims involving different parties, and against those not in privity with the parties, for fear of denying proper claims of those wrongfully damaged. To do so would deny claimants their “day in court” and be in direct violation of the open courts provision of the South Dakota Constitution art. VI, § 20.
Contrary to the majority opinion, “whether [Bruntz] ought to be allowed to trace such funds into Kathryn’s assets[,]” was not previously litigated, (emphasis added). If it had, there would be no question but that res judicata would apply to prevent a second trial of the same issue. Kathryn was not a party to the bankruptcy lawsuit, and Bruntz’ complaint in that action only sought to trace funds into “the assets which were acquired by the debtor.” (emphasis added). For these two reasons, the bankruptcy lawsuit cannot be considered “identical” to this case.
In the circumstances of this case, it would be unfair to Kathryn to expose her to a claim based on the alleged fraud of another person when, because of passage of time and bankruptcy, it would be too late for her to pursue any claim back against the alleged defrauder. Obviously, Bruntz should have:
1) established his fraud claim against Rutherford, or appealed from the denial thereof, or
2) combined his claim against Rutherford for fraud with his claim against Kathryn for tracing the proceeds of that fraud into her cabin in the Black Hills.
Either approach would have avoided the situation he, and others, now find themselves in. Since Bruntz failed to establish fraud or combine his claims, this was a proper “defensive use” of res judicata.
I am authorized to state that Justice MILLER, joins this special writing.