On Friday, December 20, 2024, KELOLAND reported that a divided South Dakota Supreme Court ordered the removal of a circuit judge from a family dispute concerning farmland in Grant County. The ruling followed a request from Paul O’Farrell, who contended that a different judge should oversee the case.

The Supreme Court’s decision overturned all directives issued by Circuit Judge Robert Spears after O’Farrell initially sought a change of judge. Judge Spears had been assigned to the complex case by Third Circuit Presiding Judge Greg Stoltenburg, who replaced Circuit Judge Dawn Elshere.

Attorney Daniel Brendtro, representing Paul O’Farrell and one of the businesses involved, submitted an informal request for Judge Spears to disqualify himself. This request was based on the connection between the judge’s campaign treasurer and parties in two related matters. However, Judge Spears declined to step down, asserting his ability to remain “fair and impartial.” He noted that O’Farrell had previously waived any potential conflict in a related guardianship case.

After Judge Spears refused to recuse himself, O’Farrell filed an affidavit with Presiding Judge Stoltenburg, stating that his business, Skyline, had valid reasons to believe it could not receive a fair trial under Judge Spears. Nevertheless, Judge Stoltenburg rejected this request, citing the earlier waiver in the guardianship case, even though that case was not directly involved in the current dispute.

Following Judge Spears’ rulings, which included granting dismissal requests from other parties and ordering O’Farrell and Skyline to pay nearly $18,000 in attorney fees, O’Farrell appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court. He argued that Presiding Judge Stoltenburg made an error by denying the affidavit for a change of judge.

In its ruling, three justices of the Supreme Court—Janine Kern, Patricia DeVaney, and Scott Myren—agreed that the presiding judge had erred. Justice Myren articulated the court’s decision, emphasizing that the presiding judge had a limited scope of authority regarding such affidavits. He stated that the presiding judge could only determine whether the affidavit was timely and whether the right to file it had been waived. Myren clarified that the presiding judge acted incorrectly by considering judicial economy in denying the affidavit.

The Supreme Court’s majority found that the failure to assign a new judge resulted in a summary judgment made by a disqualified judge. Consequently, it vacated all orders entered by Judge Spears after the affidavit was filed and reversed the presiding judge’s order denying the change of judge. The case has been remanded for reassignment to a different judge.

Chief Justice Steven Jensen concurred that there was an error but disagreed with the decision to overturn Judge Spears’ directives. He argued that even if the finding of waiver was incorrect, it did not automatically disqualify the judge from proceeding.

Justice Mark Salter also partially dissented, expressing concerns that the majority’s ruling went too far by stripping the circuit court of its lawful jurisdiction without sufficient justification. He emphasized that the error did not warrant such drastic measures and called for a review of the circuit court’s decisions on their merits.

 

 

Source: KELOLAND