The South Dakota Supreme Court has heard a second appeal stemming from a battle over a family ranch near Pukwana. Attorneys for both sides of the Healy family dispute made their cases before justices Tuesday. One issue is whether a lower court erred by not including as costs around a hundred thousand dollars of attorneys fees.
Bret Healy sued his family in 2017 to challenge the sale of the ranch. A lower court judge found that his lawsuit was frivolous and malicious and awarded more than 83 thousand dollars in attorneys fees to the family.
Bret Healy appealed that decision to the South Dakota Supreme Court, which in 2019 affirmed the lower court and awarded another $18,000 plus in attorneys fees.
The case went back to the lower court, with a different judge. In late summer 2020, he voided legal fees after finding that the earlier record did not establish Healy’s intentions when he filed suit.
Joe Erickson represents Bret Healy’s family, who appeal that ruling.
“This case can be best described as ‘same song, second verse’ of Bret Healy’s continued litigation of his Healy Ranch Partnership claim.”
Erickson says Bret Healy filed a claim of interest to slander the title and prevent the sale. And he says state law allows attorneys fees as costs under those circumstances.
“There was evidence presented to the court, and the judge went through and made different findings and conclusions of law, and this court affirmed those findings.”
The attorney for Bret Healy disagrees.
“Appellant describes this case as the second verse of the same song, but I think it’s more apt to describe this case as perhaps a subsequent song on the same album.”
Angie Schneiderman says in its 2019 opinion, the Supreme Court left ownership of the ranch to be settled later.
Schneiderman says Bret Healy did not file his lawsuit to botch the sale of the ranch, but to establish title.
“When I think about this case being couched in the terms of being a quiet title action, essentially what that does is a plaintiff saying to the world, ‘Tell us your claims to this property or forever hold your peace.’”
Schneiderman says as long as there are still existing disputes, the case is not over.
Supreme Court Justices have taken the case under advisement and once again will issue an opinion at a later date.