Court Opinion

ID: 9518364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:51:18.120091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:46.134560
License: Public Domain

COLER, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I would affirm the trial court both in sustaining the jury finding for Richard Arbach and the judgment n. o. v. for Joanne Gruba.
I agree with the Chief Justice that it should be decided solely on the question of the jurisdiction of the court over the person of! Joanne Gruba. I do not agree, however, that she has in any manner waived the question of jurisdiction by appearance and participation in trial of the case. This is not the effect proposed by SDCL 15-6-12(b) when adopted. This rule, while it did away with prior rule SDC 1939, § 33.0817, did not do away with the right to at all times save the defense of lack of jurisdiction over a party. See Revisor’s Note following SDCL 15-6-12(b) and Crossman v. Contractors Rigging & Erection, 1972, 86 S.D. 448, *336198 N.W.2d 51. Defendant, Joanne Gruba, did everything she could to preserve that claim and indeed once again at the close of the trial and before the matter was submitted to the jury her attorney restated his motion to dismiss based upon the running of the statute of limitations.
The case of Behrens v. Baldenecker cited in the majority opinion may well stand for a situation of misinforming the court as to a question of fact but there is nothing in this record to mislead the trial court into believing that there may have been proper and timely service on Joanne Gruba. I agree with Justice Wollman that the conduct here could certainly not amount to “playing fast and loose” with the court.
Had the trial court granted the motion to dismiss, at any one of the several times that it was made, the error complained of in the majority opinion and on which the Chief Justice might find waiver would never have occurred and that act of defense counsel, if it was a waiver, should not relate back to deny a legitimate motion timely made.