Patterson v. Plowboy, LLC

959 N.W.2d 55

Paul PATTERSON, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.PLOWBOY, LLC, Defendant and Appellant.

#29373

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

ARGUED FEBRUARY 16, 2021

OPINION FILED April 21, 2021

ROBERT C. RITER, JR., A. JASON RUMPCA of Riter Rogers, LLP, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellee.

MARTY J. JACKLEY of Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson & Ashmore, LLP, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendant and appellant.

MYREN, Justice

[¶1.] Plowboy erected two gates across a section-line highway. Patterson sought to remove the gates claiming them to be unlawful obstructions across a section-line highway. He moved for partial summary judgment on the issue, which the circuit court granted in his favor. Plowboy petitioned for an intermediate appeal, which we granted. We affirm, in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶2.] In July 2019, Paul Patterson (Patterson) filed a complaint in Jones County seeking an injunction and a restraining order against Plowboy, LLC (Plowboy) requiring Plowboy to remove two gates placed across a section-line highway.¹ Patterson also sought a declaratory ruling that, under SDCL 31-25-1.1, Plowboy failed to establish that the section line was an unimproved road, and therefore, Plowboy was not authorized to erect a gate across the section line. Under SDCL 31-25-1.1, "[a] landowner may erect a fence across an unimproved county, township, or section-line highway[,]" if the section line is "not commonly used as a public right-of-way and never altered from its natural state in any way for the purpose of facilitating vehicular passage." Patterson claimed the section line is both commonly used and altered from its natural state to facilitate vehicular passage.

[¶3.] Plowboy countered that the section line is unimproved. He also claimed that the disputed gates do not constitute impermissible obstructions because he leaves the gates unlocked and primarily open. Plowboy also raised various counterclaims.²

[¶4.] The disputed section-line highway runs along section 28, township 2 south, range 30, east of the Black Hills Meridian in Jones County, South Dakota. The parties’ dispute began in March 2019. Plowboy notified Patterson that it intended to fence the section line adjacent to their properties and erect gates at each end of the section line. Patterson objected to Plowboy's plan. Nevertheless, Plowboy erected the gates and fence. Plowboy keeps the gates unlocked, and Patterson unhooks the gates to access his farmland.

[¶5.] In April 2020, Patterson moved for partial summary judgment only on his complaint. He sought a judgment declaring that Plowboy failed to establish that the road was unimproved, and as a result, he claimed the gates must be removed. He argued that Plowboy may only obstruct the section-line highway, under SDCL 31-25-1.1, if the section line is "unimproved." Based on his supporting submissions, he argued that there were no disputed material facts regarding the section line's unimproved state. He claimed, under SDCL 31-25-1.1, the section-line highway is improved because the public commonly used the section line, and individuals altered it from its natural state for vehicular passage. Along with multiple pictures of the gates and the section line, Patterson attached an affidavit stating that he used the section line to access his farmland, and hunters used it as a right-of-way. He also provided township meeting notes in which the township authorized him to install a culvert across the section line. Additionally, he asserted that the section-line highway had been graded to facilitate drainage and traffic and attached photographs to show the grading. He also asserted that Plowboy improved a portion of the disputed section line by adding gravel.

[¶6.] Plowboy opposed Patterson's motion arguing that Patterson holds the burden to establish that the section-line highway is improved and that an unlawful obstruction exists. It advanced that disputed material facts exist as to whether unlocked twenty-foot swing gates are unlawful obstructions and whether the highway is improved based on a thirty-four-year-old culvert and "some gravel[.]" Plowboy argued that the culvert currently serves no purpose and contended that nobody graded the section line to facilitate traffic.

[¶7.] Plowboy attached to its response the affidavit of Rob Skjonsberg (Skjonsberg), the majority member of Plowboy. He stated that raising livestock is a part of his farming operation, which necessitates the fence and gates.³ Skjonsberg maintained that he installed wider gates at Patterson's request.⁴ He also noted that he has never locked the gates. He admitted that Patterson placed a culvert in the section line. He also acknowledged that he "had placed a limited amount of gravel in an isolated area" of the section line during a construction project. However, he contended that the township does not maintain or treat the section-line highway as improved. Skjonsberg admitted that Patterson used the section-line highway but claimed that Patterson used it only a couple of times a year. He also admitted that hunters used the section line but asserted that they were trespassers.⁵

[¶8.] The circuit court heard the motion in June 2020. At the hearing, the circuit court explained that SDCL 31-18-1 requires section lines to be open to travel by the public and noted that individuals may not obstruct a section line, absent legal authority to do so. The court concluded that the road was not an unimproved section-line highway after finding no disputed material issues of fact. It granted Patterson's motion for partial summary judgment and ordered Plowboy to remove the gates.

[¶9.] After the court delivered its bench ruling, Plowboy requested clarification on whether the court found the gates to be "unlawful obstructions." The court explained that because the section-line highway was improved, the gates should not be there "period." The court's order required Plowboy to remove the gates within twenty days and did not include any determination of finality under SDCL 15-6-54(b).

[¶10.] We granted both Plowboy's discretionary appeal and request for a temporary stay of further proceedings. Plowboy raises two issues, which we restate:

1. Whether the circuit court erred in granting partial summary judgment.

2. Whether the circuit court's order and judgment may be immediately enforced and recognized as a final judgment when the ruling was not certified as a final judgment under SDCL 15-6-54(b).

Analysis and Decision

1. Whether the circuit court erred in granting partial summary judgment.

[¶11.] "We review a circuit court's entry of summary judgment under the de novo standard of review." Knecht v. Evridge , 2020 S.D. 9, ¶ 51, 940 N.W.2d 318, 332. The legal principles guiding our review of summary judgment are well-settled:

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. The nonmoving party, however, must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists. Our task on appeal is to determine only 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 a summary judgment is proper.

Sacred Heart Health Servs., Inc. v. Yankton Cnty. , 2020 S.D. 64, ¶ 11, 951 N.W.2d 544, 548.

[¶12.] Plowboy argues that the circuit court erred by concluding there were no material issues of fact in dispute which precluded summary judgment. Based on our review of the record, we disagree. It was undisputed that Patterson installed a culvert across the section line with the township's authorization. Similarly, it was undisputed that Skjonsberg, on behalf of Plowboy, placed gravel on the section line to facilitate vehicular travel. Lastly, it was undisputed that Plowboy placed an unlocked gate across the at issue section-line highway. The issue then is whether the circuit court correctly applied the law to these undisputed facts in reaching its conclusion that the section-line highway was not unimproved under SDCL 31-25-1.1.

i. Whether the gates are obstructions.

[¶13.] As a preliminary matter, Plowboy maintains that the circuit court failed to address whether an unlocked swing gate constitutes a section-line obstruction.⁶

[¶14.] "[T]his [C]ourt has liberally construed statutes defining public highways in favor of the right of the public to have access to, and use of, section lines." Reis v. Miller , 1996 S.D. 75, ¶ 20, 550 N.W.2d 78, 83. The Legislature has allowed "[t]he fencing of a public highway ... in limited circumstances. " 2018 S.D. Op. Att'y Gen. 01 (emphasis added). SDCL 31-25-1.1 and SDCL 31-25-1 provide these limited permissible circumstances. If a party does not meet either statute's requirements, the erected gate extending across a section-line highway is an unlawful obstruction warranting removal.

ii. Whether Plowboy met the requirements of SDCL 31-25-1.1, which permits an individual to erect a gate across an unimproved section line.

[¶15.] SDCL 31-18-1 provides, "There is along every section line in this state a public highway located by operation of law[.]" "[T]hese section line rights-of-way cannot be lawfully obstructed by private citizens absent legal authority [to] do so." Douville v. Christensen , 2002 S.D. 33, ¶ 11, 641 N.W.2d 651, 654. SDCL chapter 31-25 provides landowners two legal avenues for fencing across a section-line highway. First, the county commissioners can authorize a fence across an improved section-line highway when presented with a petition signed by a majority of the adjacent landowners and after completion of a hearing process. See SDCL 31-25-1 (governing section-line highways...