Christiansen v. Strand, No. 10320
| Court | Supreme Court of South Dakota |
| Writing for the Court | HANSON |
| Citation | 82 S.D. 416,147 N.W.2d 415 |
| Docket Number | No. 10320 |
| Decision Date | 23 December 1966 |
| Parties | Helen CHRISTIANSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Walter M. STRAND, Defendant and Respondent. |
Page 415
v.
Walter M. STRAND, Defendant and Respondent.
[82 S.D. 417] Larson, Bubak & Brost, Kennebec, for plaintiff and appellant.
Tinan, Carlson & Padrnos, Mitchell, for defendant and respondent.
HANSON, Judge.
[82 S.D. 418] In October, 1960 plaintiff and defendant became joint purchasers of ranch property in Lyman County under a contract for deed. Defendant Strand defaulted in some of his payments which were paid by plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff commenced an
Page 416
action to have defendant's interest in the contract for deed impressed with an equitable lien and for foreclosure of the same. This relief was granted by the trial court and on January 3, 1964, judgment was entered which decreed in part:'(4) Plaintiff having an equitable lien against Defendant's one half interest in the said contract exhibit A to secure the repayment of funds advanced by her for Defendant's share of the obligations imposed by said contract exhibit A, with costs and legal interest thereon, in total amount of $21,793.44, Plaintiff may proceed to foreclose the same in the manner provided by SDC 1960 Supp. Chapter 37.33 entitled 'Foreclosure of Liens on Personal Property By Action,' such foreclosure to be by sale of Defendant's entire interest in the said contract exhibit A, the same being indivisible; and
'(5) The Sheriff of Lyman County, S. Dak. is here directed forthwith to conduct foreclosure sale of Defendant's entire interest in said contract exhibit A in the manner provided by law and this Decree, and thereafter to apply the proceeds of the sale, after first deducting his costs and expenses of conducting same, to satisfaction of the amount hereinbefore decreed to be due Plaintiff with interest at the legal rate until paid, and in event there be any surplus remaining thereafter, that the same be paid over directly to the Defendant, Walter M. Strand, and in event the said Defendant cannot be located for that purpose, you are to provide for the safe-keeping of any such surplus until it is claimed and paid to him or such other person as may be legally entitled thereto.
'(6) That the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enter such other and further Order and Decrees as may be necessary to carry out this decree.'
[82 S.D. 419] This judgment was affirmed in a prior appeal. See Christiansen v. Strand, S.D., 132 N.W.2d 386.
After the action was remanded to Circuit Court, plaintiff moved that she be permitted to include amounts paid under the contract after entry of judgment for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown County v. Meidinger, No. 12331
...This court rejects appellant's contention that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable for several reasons. In Christiansen v. Strand, 82 S.D. 416, 147 N.W.2d 415 (1966), this court Any expression of opinion or views by the trial judge extraneous to his decision in the manner and form co......
-
Jones v. Jones, No. 13785
...implies, a memorandum opinion is merely an expression of the trial court's opinion of the facts and law. Christiansen v. Strand, 1966, 82 S.D. 416, 147 N.W.2d 415. Any expression of opinion or views by the trial judge extraneous to his decision in the manner and form contemplated by law is ......
-
City of Brookings v. Winker, No. 19499
...231 (S.D.1988). The circumstances and the locality must be taken into consideration in determining the validity of an ordinance. Tillo, 82 S.D. at 416, 147 N.W.2d at Whether the ordinance limiting the number of unrelated persons in a "family" violates the due process or the equal ......
-
Dale v. Board of Ed., Lemmon Independent School Dist. 52-2, No. 13369
...upon the trial judge himself or anyone else.' " 7 Sneesby v. Davis, 308 N.W.2d 565, 567 (S.D.1981) (quoting Christiansen v. Strand, 82 S.D. 416, 420, 147 N.W.2d 415, 417 (1966)). Furthermore the trial court's third Conclusion of Law specifically states that "(t)he Board's decision......
-
Brown County v. Meidinger, No. 12331
...This court rejects appellant's contention that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable for several reasons. In Christiansen v. Strand, 82 S.D. 416, 147 N.W.2d 415 (1966), this court Any expression of opinion or views by the trial judge extraneous to his decision in the manner and form co......
-
Jones v. Jones, No. 13785
...implies, a memorandum opinion is merely an expression of the trial court's opinion of the facts and law. Christiansen v. Strand, 1966, 82 S.D. 416, 147 N.W.2d 415. Any expression of opinion or views by the trial judge extraneous to his decision in the manner and form contemplated by law is ......
-
City of Brookings v. Winker, No. 19499
...231 (S.D.1988). The circumstances and the locality must be taken into consideration in determining the validity of an ordinance. Tillo, 82 S.D. at 416, 147 N.W.2d at Whether the ordinance limiting the number of unrelated persons in a "family" violates the due process or the equal ......
-
Dale v. Board of Ed., Lemmon Independent School Dist. 52-2, No. 13369
...upon the trial judge himself or anyone else.' " 7 Sneesby v. Davis, 308 N.W.2d 565, 567 (S.D.1981) (quoting Christiansen v. Strand, 82 S.D. 416, 420, 147 N.W.2d 415, 417 (1966)). Furthermore the trial court's third Conclusion of Law specifically states that "(t)he Board's decision......