Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

511 N.W.2d 279

Haberer v. Rice

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided January 26, 1994

South Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1994-01-26

Applies SD 53 § 53-8-5

Relies on Haberer v. First Bank of South Dakota (NA) · Quick v. Bakke, Kopp, Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. · Smith v. Even

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-01-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably 222 Ill. 2d 218 - Tri-G, Inc. v. Burke, Bosselman & Weaver (2006), Environmental Network Corp. v. Miller (2008)

2 district · 32 state decisions

1701994200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

AMUNDSON, Justice

¶1(concurring specially)-

¶2In Count V of Haberers’ complaint, they allege that Rice failed to answer First Bank’s complaint for default on their $125,000 loan. Haberers claim that this deprived them of the opportunity to interpose defenses and counterclaims. There is no factual dispute that Rice failed to prepare and file an answer or counterclaim. See Haberer v. First Bank of South Dakota, 429 N.W.2d 62 (S.D.1988). Aso, in this prior decision, this court found that the evidence showed that Haberers agreed to and accepted the terms of the new $125,000 loan agreement.

¶3This new agreement must be the focal point to determine whether Haberers would have been successful in obtaining a judgment against First Bank of South Dakota. This court held in Quick v. Bakke, Kopp, Ballou & McFarlin, Inc., 380 N.W.2d 364, 366 (S.D.1982), as follows:

A written agreement supersedes all previous understandings and the intent of the parties must be ascertained therefrom, except, of course in cases involving fraud, mistake or ambiguity. (Citations omitted.) Aso, SDCL 53-8-5 provides:
The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matters which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument.

¶4The pleadings in this case do not allege any fraud, mistake or ambiguity as it relates to the First Bank foreclosure action. Therefore, when this case is retried, the question which should be addressed by the trial court is whether or not Haberers would have been successful in obtaining a judgment against First Bank in the foreclosure action on the $125,000 note or contract. See Smith v. *290Even, 53 S.D. 369, 220 N.W. 878 (1928). What transpired during the negotiation for the $250,000 SBA loan or the alleged $150,-000 loan commitment should have no bearing on the case within a ease. The issue is whether Haberers had a meritorious defense to the $125,000 foreclosure action or a meritorious counterclaim limited to the $125,000 note.

/511/nw2d/279 · .json · Public domain