Estate of Fountain v. Schroeder, 21859.

• Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota
• Citation: 2001 SD 139,637 N.W.2d 27
• Docket Number: No. 21859.,21859.
• Parties: ESTATE OF Charles A. FOUNTAIN, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ellen (Fountain) SCHROEDER, Defendant and Appellant.
• Decision Date: 14 November 2001

637 N.W.2d 27
2001 SD 139

ESTATE OF Charles A. FOUNTAIN, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Ellen (Fountain) SCHROEDER, Defendant and Appellant

No. 21859.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Considered on Briefs October 1, 2001.

Decided November 14, 2001.

Michael A. Hauck of Bangs, McCullen, Butler, Foye & Simmons, Sioux Falls, for appellee.

637 N.W.2d 28

Gregory P. Grajczyk of Boos & Grajczyk, Milbank, for appellant

GORS, Acting Justice.

¶ 1 Ellen Schroeder (Ellen) appeals from a judgment ordering her eviction from the property on which she was living and in favor of the Estate of Charles A. Fountain (Estate) for $3,500 for unpaid rent plus interest and costs. We reverse.

FACTS

¶ 2 Ellen, Charles Fountain (Charles) and Kevin Fountain (Kevin) are siblings. Ellen moved to Brandon, South Dakota, to care for her parents in 1991. In 1994, Ellen moved her mobile home to an adjacent vacant lot owned by her father (Father) who allowed Ellen to use the lot if she would pay one half of the real estate taxes on both his home and the vacant lot.

¶ 3 Mother died in 1995 and Father died April 26, 1999. Father's will provided that Ellen could buy the lot and Father's house from the Estate on a contract for deed under specific terms. After Father's death, Charles became the personal representative of Father's estate. Charles allowed Ellen to stay on the lot during the probate of the estate under the existing agreement to pay one half of the taxes on both properties.

¶ 4 Negotiations between Ellen and the Estate dragged on following Father's death. Kevin was appointed successor personal representative to Charles. Kevin served Ellen notice on September 28, 2000, demanding $200 per month rent on the lot where her mobile home was located retroactive to Father's death seventeen months earlier, and $500 per month rent on Father's house. A total of $3,900.00 was claimed to be due on October 1. When Ellen did not pay, Kevin served a three-day notice to quit on October 13, and commenced an action for forcible entry and detainer (eviction) on October 20.

¶ 5 The trial court held that after Father's death, Ellen had a month-to-month tenancy but denied the Estate's claim for retroactive rent. The trial court found Ellen owed $700 per month for the two properties beginning October 1, and gave the Estate a judgment for five months rent in the amount of $3,500.00 plus interest and costs. The trial court also ordered Ellen evicted.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 6 This Court reviews a trial court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard and will overturn a trial court's conclusions of law only when the trial court erred as a matter of law. In re Estate of O'Keefe, 1998 SD 92, ¶ 7, 583 N.W.2d 138, 139. "The question is not whether this Court would have made the same finding that the trial court did, but whether on the entire evidence we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Century 21 Associated Realty v. Hoffman, 503 N.W.2d 861, 864 (S.D.1993) "This Court interprets statutes under a de novo standard of review without deference to the decision of the trial court." In re Estate of Jetter, 1997 SD 125, ¶ 10, 570 N.W.2d 26, 28. When the issue involves a question of mixed law and fact requiring the application of a legal standard, the court will treat the issue as a question of law subject to de novo review. Permann v. Dep't of Labor, 411 N.W.2d 113, 119 (S.D.1987).

ANALYSIS AND...