Dunham v. The First Nat. Bank in Sioux Falls, 11852-

Decision Date14 December 1977
Docket NumberNo. 11852-,11852-
Citation260 N.W.2d 375
PartiesL. T. DUNHAM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN SIOUX FALLS, a National Banking Association, Defendant and Respondent. a.
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

Horace R. Jackson of Lynn, Jackson, Shultz, Ireland & Lebrun, Rapid City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Deming Smith of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, Sioux Falls, for defendant and respondent.

YOUNG, Circuit Judge.

Before discussing the particular issues presented to this Court, it is necessary to describe the procedural history of this case.

In February of 1970, The First National Bank in Sioux Falls (Bank) commenced an action in circuit court in Sioux Falls against L. T. Dunham (Dunham) and two other individuals not parties to the present appeal. The action was brought by the Bank against Dunham and two other individuals upon a promissory note alleged to have been due. At the time of the trial, there was no evidence elicited from or for the defendants. Judgment was rendered against the defendants in the amount of $112,237.27 plus interest, together with $43.20 costs on April 29, 1970.

Thereupon, in May of 1970, the Bank commenced an action in the United States District Court, District of Minnesota, Fourth Division, upon the original South Dakota judgment. Judgment was entered in that court and the Bank began looking for assets of Dunham. The Bank had recovered only $4,790.30 in a year's time, so a second action was commenced in the Minnesota Federal Court to set aside the transfer of certain assets of Dunham alleged to have been fraudulently transferred and to subject those assets to the lien of the judgment. This action was commenced on June 1, 1971.

Dunham answered the complaint in this second Minnesota action and counterclaimed to recover the $4,790.30 which the Bank had obtained by levy on his property. The counterclaim was based on the allegation of forgery of his signature to the guaranty.

On June 30, 1971, Dunham commenced an action in circuit court in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to vacate the judgment in the first South Dakota action. Dunham alleged that upon being served with the summons and complaint, he had contacted one of the defendants, Sticha, and informed him that he, Dunham, had not signed the guaranty which was the basis of the action against him and that his signature which appeared thereon was a forgery. Sticha then informed Dunham that any judgment would first have to be obtained against the corporation, Kaiser Enterprises, Inc., and go unsatisfied before a judgment could be obtained against Dunham; that negotiations were being made for the sale of Kaiser Enterprises Inc., which sales would soon be completed and the proceeds therefrom used to satisfy the claims of the Bank; and that therefore Dunham should make no claim that his signature on the guaranty was a forgery. Therefore, according to Dunham's allegations, relying upon this representation he did not, in fact, allege a forgery in his answer. There were other allegations concerning his reason for not asserting the forgery defense. The facts of that case are more fully set forth in Dunham v. First National Bank in Sioux Falls, 1972, 86 S.D. 727, 201 N.W.2d 227. In any event, Dunham's complaint to vacate the first South Dakota judgment was dismissed and an order denying Dunham a rehearing was issued. On August 30, 1971, Dunham filed an appeal to this Court from that ruling.

Before any action was taken on the appeal to this Court, the trial in Minnesota (the second Minnesota action), was commenced on November 29, 1971. The judge in the Minnesota action expressed doubt as to whether or not he should hear testimony on the forgery issue because of the pending South Dakota action. The Bank argued that the forgery issue should not be heard. Mr. Dunham's attorney stated:

"If the Court please, we interpose a counter-claim, which is still before the Court. So long as that fact exists, we feel that we should be prepared to go ahead and prove the facts of that counter-claim."

After a short discussion concerning the pending South Dakota appeal, the following colloquy took place concerning the forgery issue:

COURT: "If they (South Dakota Supreme Court) resolve it against you in the final analysis, do you intend to come back here and ask this Court to relitigate it?"

MR. GRANNIS: "Certainly."

COURT: "Then we might as well do it right now and have that over with. So you go ahead."

Thereafter, a considerable amount of testimony was taken on the issue of forgery which was made the basis of Dunham's counterclaim. In fact, from December 3, 1971, through December 12, 1971, the court was in recess to permit Dunham to obtain a witness on that issue. The judge himself, on one occasion, located one of Dunham's witnesses for him when Dunham was unable to do so.

After much testimony, the court made the following findings of fact:

"40. L. T. Dunham signed the guaranty given the First National Bank in Sioux Falls."

Part of the judgment stated:

"ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that the Counterclaim of defendant L. T. Dunham in Suit No. 4-71 Civil 280 be and the same is hereby dismissed with prejudice on the merits."

Therefore, the issue of forgery was decided against Dunham and his counterclaim against the Bank based on the alleged forgery was dismissed with prejudice on the merits. The court also set aside certain transfers made by Dunham. On January 8, 1973, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed that decision. First National Bank in Sioux Falls v. Dunham, 8 Cir., 471 F.2d 712. Dunham did not appeal from the District Court's finding on the forgery issue.

Meanwhile, on March 28, 1972, oral argument was heard before this Court on Dunham's appeal from the order dismissing his complaint for relief from the original South Dakota judgment. On October 6, 1972, this Court reversed the circuit court's decision and remanded the case to the circuit court to determine whether Dunham was entitled to have the judgment of April 29, 1970, vacated so that he might raise the issue of forgery as a defense to the Bank's original action against him on the guaranty. See Dunham v. First National Bank in Sioux Falls, supra. It should be noted that the record before this Court at that time did not contain the Minnesota court's decision, especially on the forgery issue.

Therefore, the case was remanded to the circuit court in Sioux Falls. On remand, the Bank in its amended answer to Dunham's complaint stated:

"VII.

Further answering, and as an affirmative defense, Defendant states that Plaintiff is estopped from raising the issue of forgery in this action for the reason that such issue was raised by Plaintiff over Defendant's objection in subsequent litigation between Plaintiff and Defendant in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Fourth Division, File Nos. 4-70 Civil 184 and 4-71 Civil 280; that said United States District Court found as a fact that the said L. T. Dunham signed the guaranty given the Bank and entered Judgment in favor of the Bank against Dunham on April 20, 1972; that no appeal was taken by Dunham from that finding, although he did appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upon other issues determined by the Judgment of said United States District Court against him. (Appeal Nos. 72-1310 and 72-1311); that said appeal was decided against Dunham, said United States Court of Appeals having affirmed said United States District Court's decision on January 8, 1973, in The First National Bank in ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Offet v. Solem, 86-5209
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • July 13, 1987
    ...Sec. 1983 could be used as a basis for issue preclusion in a subsequent habeas proceeding in state court. See Dunham v. First National Bank, 260 N.W.2d 375, 379 (S.D.1977) (prior federal ruling collaterally estops state court from adjudicating same issue); see also Americana Fabrics, Inc. v......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT