Hardy v. West Cent. School Dist. No. 49-7, 17457

• Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota
• Citation: 72 Ed.LawRep. 358,478 N.W.2d 832
• Docket Number: No. 17457,17457
• Parties: 72 Ed. Law Rep. 358 Lavonne HARDY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WEST CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT # 49-7, and its Board of Education, Defendant and Appellant. . Considered on Briefs
• Decision Date: 24 October 1991

Page 832

478 N.W.2d 832 72 Ed. Law Rep. 358 Lavonne HARDY, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
WEST CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT # 49-7, and its Board of
Education, Defendant and Appellant. No. 17457. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs Oct. 24, 1991.
Decided Dec. 24, 1991.

Dennis C. Mc Farland of Mc Farland & Nicholson, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and appellee.

Marvin K. Bailin and James A. Hertz of Christopherson, Bailin & Anderson, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellant.

AMUNDSON, Justice.

West Central School District (District) appeals trial court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Lavonne Hardy (Hardy), and its damage award, for District's nonrenewal of Hardy's teaching contract. We dismiss the appeal and vacate the trial court's judgment.

Hardy, a tenured teacher, was notified by District's superintendent on March 5, 1986, of his intent to recommend nonrenewal of her teaching contract. On March 24, 1986, District's Board of Education (Board) voted unanimously not to renew Hardy's contract. Hardy was notified of this decision March 26, 1986, and did not pursue the appeal procedure set out at SDCL 13-43-10.1. Hardy served notice of appeal to circuit court on District on June 23, 1986, and filed the notice with the clerk of courts on June 24, 1986. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Hardy and, following a trial on damages, awarded her approximately $63,567 in back wages and lost retirement benefits, and ordered her reinstated to her position. We issued an order to show cause on October 29, 1991, and have considered both Hardy's and District's responses to the order.

ANALYSIS

This court generally has a duty to determine whether the trial court has jurisdiction over a matter as a condition precedent to its right to decide the issues involved. Long v. Knight Const. Co., Inc., 262 N.W.2d 207 (S.D.1978); Sioux City Boat Club v. Mulhall, 79 S.D. 668, 117 N.W.2d 92 (1962). Even if none of the parties have challenged jurisdiction, this court will, sua sponte, determine whether the lower court had jurisdiction. Estate of Putnam, 254 N.W.2d 460 (S.D.1977); Shryock v. Mitchell Concrete Products, Inc., 87 S.D. 566, 212 N.W.2d 498 (1973); Tri-State Milling Co. v. Board of County Comrs., Pennington County, 75 S.D. 466, 68 N.W.2d 104 (1955). In the present case, although none of the parties challenged the circuit court's jurisdiction, we find it necessary to make a sua sponte determination.

Hardy appealed...