Klinker v. Beach, 19272

Decision Date12 March 1996
Docket NumberNo. 19272,19272
Citation1996 SD 56,547 N.W.2d 572
PartiesValdine KLINKER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Floyd and Bill BEACH, Defendants and Appellees. . Considered on Briefs
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

Robert J. Breit, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and appellant.

David M. Buechler, Parker, for defendants and appellees.

GILBERTSON, Justice.

¶1 Valdine Klinker appeals from the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Floyd and Bill Beach. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

¶2 Floyd and Bill Beach, father and son, formed a partnership to construct a home in 1977. Following its completion, Bill Beach lived in the home for one year. Bill Beach claimed to have no problems with the home during the time in which he occupied it. In 1980, Valdine Klinker and her husband, now deceased, purchased the home from Beaches. Klinkers and Beaches entered into a Real Estate Purchase Agreement in which Klinkers agreed to purchase the home in its "as is" condition. This agreement referenced the fact that the buyers had inspected the property. No representations were made to the Klinkers by the Beaches about the property other than what was contained within the purchase agreement.

¶3 Klinker stated she first noticed problems with water coming into the home in 1992. Klinker retained a contractor to fix the problem. While in the crawl space to lay plastic in Klinker's basement, the contractor discovered gaps between the corners of the foundation walls. The contractor alleges these gaps appeared because the corner blocks were not overlapped correctly by the Beaches when they built the home. The contractor also noted the cement steps in front of the home were sloped downward. The contractor alleges the steps sloped because the dirt underneath was not packed properly.

¶4 Klinker hired this same contractor to fix her kitchen countertops that she claims had sunk 1/8 of an inch after she had replaced her dishwasher in 1993. The contractor discovered that scrap materials, including rubber hose, had been used as shims. The contractor alleges this practice is against the industry standards, which requires the use of pre-made shims. Klinker alleges the Beaches also used coat hanger wire instead of plumbing strap to hang the basement pipes, and an extension cord instead of electrical wire to complete an electrical circuit.

¶5 The contractor further discovered the foundation of the home had previously cracked and these cracks had been filled with mortar and the interior walls of the foundation covered with styrofoam insulation. The contractor also found the plate material, tying the foundation to the floor, was made of scrap pieces of wood rather than one piece of board. According to the contractor, using one piece of board is common construction industry practice. Lastly, the contractor found the foundation of the home was not reinforced with re-bar. Klinker alleges Beaches' failure to reinforce the foundation with re-bar caused the foundation to bow in and, as a result, the foundation had to be replaced.

¶6 Klinker brought an action against the Beaches in 1995, three years after she first noticed these problems, to recover her damages for Beaches' alleged faulty workmanship in constructing the home. Beaches answered and moved for summary judgment, citing the ten-year statute of limitations in SDCL 15-2A-1 and 15-2A-3. Beaches stated, by affidavit in support of their motion for summary judgment, that the basement was used as a game room when Bill Beach lived in the house and that the cracks were repaired and styrofoam insulation placed on the wall to make the room more comfortable and to save on fuel costs. Beaches further testified by affidavit that the basement was constructed by a reputable sub-contractor in the area, that drain tile and construction-grade gravel were properly installed, and that no rubber hose was used as shim material.

¶7 The trial court found the ten-year statute of limitations under SDCL 15-2A-1 and 15-2A-3 applied to defeat Klinker's action and granted Beaches' motion for summary judgment. Klinker appeals, raising the following issue:

Whether Beaches are guilty of "fraudulent concealment" such that would toll the statute of limitations set forth in SDCL 15-2A-1 and 15-2A-7?

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶8 Our standard of review on a motion for summary judgment is well established. We must determine:

whether the moving party demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and showed entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law. The evidence must be viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party and reasonable doubts should be resolved against the moving party. Our task on appeal is to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied. If there exists any basis which supports the ruling of the trial court, affirmance of summary judgment is proper.

Parkhurst v. Burkel, 1996 SD 19, p 6, 544 N.W.2d 210, 212 (1996) (quoting Henry v. Henry, 534 N.W.2d 844, 846 (S.D.1995)). This standard of review also applies on a motion for summary judgment where fraudulent concealment has been alleged. See Koenig v. Lambert, 527 N.W.2d 903, 904 (S.D.1995).

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

¶9 Whether the Beaches are guilty of "fraudulent concealment" such that would toll the statute of limitations set forth in SDCL 15-2A-1 and 15-2A-7?

¶10 This is our first opportunity to interpret SDCL Ch 15-2A. 1 SDCL 15-2A-1 provides the following statement of the intent of the Legislature concerning the scope of this chapter:

The Legislature finds that subsequent to the completion of construction, persons involved in the planning, design and construction of improvements to real estate lack control over the determination of the need for, the undertaking of and the responsibility for maintenance, and lack control over other forces, uses and intervening causes which cause stress, strain, wear and tear to the improvements and, in most cases, have no right or opportunity to be made aware of or to evaluate the effect of these forces on a particular improvement or to take action to overcome the effect of these forces. Therefore, it is in the public interest to set a point in time following the substantial completion of the project after which no action may be brought for errors and omissions in the planning, design and construction of improvements to real estate, whether these errors and omissions have resulted or may result in injury or not, unless the person involved in the planning, design and construction of the improvements was guilty of fraud, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, willful or wanton misconduct, or unless the person involved in the planning, design and construction of improvements to real estate expressly warranted or guaranteed the improvement for a longer time period. This legislation is determined to be in the public interest and in the interest of equating the rights of due process between the prospective litigants in the areas of planning, design and construction of improvements to real property in an equitable manner, while adjusting the standard of care so that persons attempting to bring actions under a general standard of care against persons involved in the planning, design and construction of improvements to real estate only have ten years to bring actions following substantial completion against those involved in the planning, design and construction, and following that ten-year time period actions may be brought against such persons only if they are guilty of fraud, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of express warranties or guarantees, or willful or wanton misconduct in the planning, design and construction of improvements to real estate.

(emphasis added).

¶11 The statute of limitation found in SDCL 15-2A-3 is in conformity with this stated intent:

No action to recover damages for any injury to real or personal property, for personal injury or death arising out of any deficiency in the design, planning, supervision, inspection and observation of construction or construction, of an improvement to real property, nor any action for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained on account of such injury or death, may be brought against any person performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection and observation of construction, or construction, of such an improvement more than ten years after substantial completion of such construction. The date of substantial completion shall be determined by the date when construction is sufficiently completed so that the owner or his representative can occupy or use the improvement for the use it was intended.

(emphasis added).

¶12 SDCL 15-2A-7 ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Cleveland v. BDL Enterprises, Inc.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • May 14, 2003
    ...relationship is present, mere silence on the part of the fiduciary may support the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. See Klinker v. Beach, 1996 SD 56, ¶ 14, 547 N.W.2d 572, [¶ 21.] We find that no confidential or fiduciary relationship existed between FMG and the Homeowners. FMG was emplo......
  • Strassburg v. Citizens State Bank
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • July 8, 1998
    ...recklessly made; [and] made with intent to deceive and for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it." Klinker v. Beach, 1996 SD 56 p 13, 547 N.W.2d 572, 575. For fraud to be actionable, a party must further "rely on it and [be] induced thereby to act to his injury or damage." ......
  • State v. Helland
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • December 7, 2005
    ...have presented the issue to the court below and obtained a ruling before it will be permitted to be raised on appeal) (quoting Klinker v. Beach, 1996 SD 56, ¶ 17 n. 3, 547 N.W.2d 572, 576; and Hawkins v. Peterson, 474 N.W.2d 90, 95 (S.D.1991)). MEIERHENRY, Justice (concurring in result). [¶......
  • Satellite Cable Services, Inc. v. Northern Electric Co-op., Inc.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • July 1, 1998
    ...obtain a ruling. "This Court will not decide issues the trial court has not had the opportunity to rule upon." Klinker v. Beach, 1996 SD 56, p 17 n. 3, 547 N.W.2d 572, 576 n. 3; Knudson v. Hess, 1996 SD 137, p 8, 556 N.W.2d 73, 75; Hawkins v. Peterson, 474 N.W.2d 90, 95 (S.D.1991). Under ou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • 7 The Developing Law of Spoliation in State Civil Courts
    • United States
    • Spoliation of Evidence: Sanctions & Remedies for Destruction of Evidence in Civil Litigation (ABA)
    • Invalid date
    ...Wuest v. McKennan Hosp., 619 N.W.2d 682 (S.D. 2000).[756] .Id. at ¶ 16 (quoting Engesser, 661 N.W.2d at 753). See also Klinker v. Beach, 547 N.W.2d 572, 576 n.2 (S.D. 1996) (noting that when a relevant document is not offered in support of a claim, the court "will assume it will not provide......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Spoliation of Evidence: Sanctions & Remedies for Destruction of Evidence in Civil Litigation (ABA)
    • Invalid date
    ...Co. v. Liberty Media Corp., 217 F.R.D. 517 (D. Colo. 2003), 29 Klezmer v. Buynak, 227 F.R.D. 43 (E.D.N.Y. 2005), 8, 323 Klinker v. Beach, 547 N.W.2d 572 (S.D. 1996), 281 Klupt v. Krongard, 728 A.2d 727 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1999) , 218 Knutson Mortgage Corp. v. Coleman, 951 P.2d 548 (Kan. Ct.......

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