Court Opinion

ID: 9710008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:59:31.161553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:53.361417
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting in part and concurring in result in part).
I believe the trial court erred on Issue II in excluding evidence of Brandriets’ credit history. Their credit history is relevant, highly probative and material to Norwest’s defense. SDCL 19-12-2. Very simply, Brandriets’ credit history alone would be sufficient reason for denying this loan. This credit history was also extremely important in view of the substance of Justice Amundson’s dissent.
The majority’s view of this matter is simply too narrow. It is one thing for the jury to hear “on numerous occasions, Neu-berger, Mueller, and Callis testif[y] that the Brandriets were rejected based on their current debt-to-income ratio or insufficient income.” It is another thing for the jury to be convinced. Their credit history may have been the key in proving that denial of the loan was proper and the jury was entitled to have this information in order to make its decision. I would reverse and remand for trial on this issue.
I write specially to concur in result on Issue IV — punitive damages. It appears that the burden to demand a predeposition or pretrial hearing on punitive damages should be upon the defendant under SDCL 21-1-4.1. See generally Dahl v. Sittner, 474 N.W.2d 897 (S.D.1991); Vreugdenhil v. *620First Bank of S.D., 467 N.W.2d 756 (S.D.1991). Since that is the result of this opinion, I concur in that result.