Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

69 S.D. 28

6 N.W.2d 162

Michels v. Kirfel

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided November 9, 1942

South Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1942-11-09

Relies on Janssen v. Tusha

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1942-11-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 2010

2 district · 3 state decisions

2019421950196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 The appellant foreclosed by action a mortgage that he held upon real property of respondent. A deficiency remained after foreclosure sale, and judgment was entered against respondent for this deficiency. The appellant took out a general execution based upon this deficiency judgment and levied upon other real property belonging to respondent. The property was sold at execution sale, and a sheriff’s certificate of sale issued to appellant. This present action was brought to enjoin the issuance of the sheriff’s deed based upon the execution sale.

¶2 It is the position of respondent and the view taken by the trial court that the court was without jurisdiction to enter a deficiency judgment in the foreclosure action because of the failure of the appellant in that action to comply with the provisions of Ch. 146, Laws of 1939, and the court being without jurisdiction the judgment for a deficiency is void and subject to attack in this action. This court has recently held contrary to respondent’s position. Janssen v. Tusha, 68 S. D. 639, 5 N. W.2d 684. We adhere to the holding in the Janssen-Tusha case and it follows that the judgment of the trial court must be reversed.

All the Judges concur.
/69/sd/28 · .json · Public domain