Swenson v. Brown

#24999-a-PER CURIAM

2009 SD 64

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

* * * *

GENA ELIZABETH SWENSON, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CARRIE ELLA BROWN, Defendant and Appellee.

* * * *

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
DAVISON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA

* * * *

HONORABLE SEAN M. O'BRIEN
Judge

* * * *

CHRIS A. NIPE of
Larson & Nipe
Mitchell, South Dakota Attorneys for plaintiff
and appellant.

JACK H. HIEB
ZACHARY W. PETERSON of
Richardson, Wyly, Wise, Sauk & Hieb LLP
Aberdeen, South Dakota Attorneys for defendant
and appellee.

* * * *

CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
ON APRIL 27, 2009

OPINION FILED 07/22/09
#24999

PER CURIAM

[¶1.] Gena Swenson appeals the circuit court’s dismissal of her personal

injury action following the death of the defendant, Carrie Brown, and the lack of a

motion to substitute for Brown within ninety days of the service of a suggestion of

death by Brown’s attorney pursuant to SDCL 15-6-25(a)(1). We affirm.

FACTS

[¶2.] On May 14, 2004, Swenson commenced this personal injury action

against Brown following an automobile accident. Brown passed away on June 1,

2007. On March 28, 2008, a suggestion of death upon the record was served upon

Swenson’s counsel via first class mail by the attorney that represented Brown prior

to her death. That document was filed with the circuit court on March 31, 2008.

On that same day, the personal representative for Brown’s estate also admitted

service of the suggestion of death upon the record.

[¶3.] On July 10, 2008, Brown’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss the action

because no motion to substitute his deceased client was made within ninety days as

required by SDCL 15-6-25(a)(1). This matter has been complicated because

Swenson’s attorney is a member of the firm that is now handling the estate for

Brown. Swenson maintains that the suggestion of death did not trigger the ninety-

day provision contained in SDCL 15-6-25(a)(1) because the attorney for the

decedent is no longer a party to the action. Swenson did not file a motion to

substitute for the decedent at any point or seek to extend the time for the filing of

such motion pursuant to SDCL 15-6-6(b). The circuit court granted the motion to

dismiss.

-1-
#24999

DISCUSSION

[¶4.] Whether the circuit court erred as a matter of law in
dismissing this action when a motion to substitute for the decedent was
not made within ninety days following the suggestion of death upon the
record.

[¶5.] This case is controlled by the interpretation of SDCL 15-6-25(a)(1).

Statutory interpretation is a question of law to be reviewed under the de novo

standard of review. Discover Bank v. Stanley, 2008 SD 111, ¶15, 757 NW2d 756,

761 (citing Martinmaas v. Engelmann, 2000 SD 85, ¶49, 612 NW2d 600, 611).

The purpose of statutory construction is to discover the
true intention of the law which is to be ascertained
primarily from the language expressed in the statute.
The intent of a statute is determined from what the
legislature said, rather than what the courts think it
should have said, and the court must confine itself to the
language used. Words and phrases in a statute must be
given their plain meaning and effect. When the language
in a statute is clear, certain and unambiguous, there is no
reason for construction, and the Court’s only function is to
declare the meaning of the statute as clearly expressed.

Id. The same rule applies to construction of this Court’s rules of civil procedure. Id.

(citing Maynard v. Heeren, 1997 SD 60, ¶14, 563 NW2d 830, 835).

[¶6.] SDCL 15-6-25(a)(1) provides:

If a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished,
the court may order substitution of the proper parties.
The motion for substitution may be made by any party or
by the successors or representatives of the deceased party
and, together with the notice of hearing, shall be served
on the parties as provided in § 15-6-5 and upon persons
not parties in the manner provided in § 15-6-4 for the
service of a summons. Unless the motion for substitution
is made not later than ninety days after the death is
suggested upon the record by service of a statement of the
fact of the death as provided herein for the service of the
motion, the action shall be dismissed as to the deceased
party.
-2-
#24999

(Emphasis added.) Swenson argues that the circuit court erred in its determination

that the motion to substitute must be made within ninety days following service of

the suggestion of death or dismissal is required. However, that interpretation is

supported by the plain language of the rule: “Unless the motion for substitution is

made not later than ninety days after the death is suggested upon the record by

service of a statement of the fact of the death as provided herein for the service of

the motion, the action shall be dismissed as to the deceased party.” SDCL 15-6-

25(a)(1).

[¶7.] Nevertheless, Swenson argues that the use of “may” in the first clause

of the rule renders the dismissal discretionary. That provision states: “If a party

dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court may order substitution of

the proper parties.” SDCL 15-6-25(a)(1). However, this permissive language is only

invoked when a timely motion is made. A motion is timely if made “not later than

ninety days after the death is suggested upon the record by service of a statement of

the fact of the death.” SDCL 15-6-25(a)(1). Any other interpretation would render

the last sentence of SDCL 15-6-25(a)(1) meaningless and would do violence to its

plain meaning. Consequently, Swenson’s argument that the dismissal was

discretionary and the circuit court abused its discretion is not supported by the

plain language of the rule.

[¶8.] Significantly, the predicate question to this analysis is whether or not

the suggestion of death served in this case was sufficient to trigger the ninety-day

period. Swenson argues that counsel for Brown was not the proper party to serve

the suggestion of death as his representation ended with her passing. Further,
-3-
#24999

Swenson argues that personal service of the suggestion of death upon her was

required, and the service upon her counsel was ineffective, because of the conflict of

interest that existed on this record. Essentially, Swenson is arguing there should

be an exception to the plain language of SDCL 15-6-25(a)(1) and its service

requirements based on a conflict of interest in this case.

[¶9.] In support of the assertion that counsel for the decedent could not

effectuate proper service, Swenson cites Ripple v. Wold, 1997 SD 135, 572 NW2d

439 (Ripple II); Ripple v. Wold, 1998 SD 69, 580 NW2d 625 (Ripple III); and London

v. Adams, 1998 SD 41, ¶7, 578 NW2d 145, 147. In Ripple II and Ripple III, this

Court addressed whether service of a suggestion of death under SDCL 15-6-25(a)(1)

was properly made on the personal representatives for the estates. In those cases,

the service was deemed defective when it was made on the decedents’ attorneys and

not on the personal representatives personally, as required by SDCL 15-6-25(a)(1).

Ripple II, 1997 SD 135, ¶¶13-17, 572 NW2d at 442-44; Ripple III, 1998 SD 69, ¶3,

580 NW2d at 626. In reaching that holding, the Court indicated the following:

The rationale for requiring personal service on the
representative or successor is explained as follows:

Personal service of the suggestion of death on the
representative achieves a salutary litigation
function. It alerts the nonparty to the consequences
of death for a pending suit, signaling the need for
action to preserve the claim if so desired.

In addition to insuring that the decedent’s
representative has notice of the litigation, a
supplemental reason for rejecting service on
decedent's attorney alone is based on the law of
agency. Because the attorney’s power to act ceases
with the client's death, counsel has no power to

-4-
#24999

continue or terminate an action on behalf of a dead
client.

6 Moore's Federal Practice, § 25.10[3][e], at 25-21
(Matthew Bender 3d ed.) (citations and internal quotation
omitted); accord Federal Practice & Procedure, supra, §
1955, at 545 & n12:

[The attorney for the deceased] is not himself a
party to the action and, since his authority to
represent the deceased terminated on the death, he
is not a “representative of the deceased party” of
the sort contemplated in the rule.

(Citations omitted) (noting also that the decedent’s
attorney may not suggest the death on the record).

Ripple II, 1997 SD 135, ¶14, 572 NW2d at 443; Ripple III, 1998 SD 69, ¶4, n2, 580

NW2d at 626 (emphasis added). 1 Although the emphasized statement indicated

above was dicta to the holding, it is an accurate, although not uncontroverted,

statement of existing law in some jurisdictions, mostly federal courts interpreting

1. In London v. Adams, also cited by Swenson, the following statement appears:

McCahren argued that no suggestion of death had been
formally served on him, so the time period for
substituting a party could not have run. The trial court
ultimately concluded that a proper suggestion of death
had not been made and that the ninety-day period for
substituting a party had not run. The court reasoned
that, due to the death of his client, Harmon was not a
representative of a party as contemplated by SDCL 15-6-
25(a)(1) and, therefore, was without power to make a
proper suggestion of death on the record.

1998 SD 41, ¶7, 578 NW2d at 147. This statement is contained in the
recitation of the facts and procedure in that opinion. Id. This Court did not
discuss the propriety of the trial court’s conclusion and it was not an issue in
the appeal. The statement does not even rise to the level of dicta in that case;
it is a mere recitation of the history of the case.

-5-
#24999

the federal rule. 2 If we were to accept that position, the suggestion of death served

by the decedent’s attorney would be considered a nullity.

[¶10.] However, after examining the divergent authority on this issue we

hold that SDCL 15-6-25(a)(1) allows for the service of the suggestion of death by the

attorney formerly representing the decedent. It is noteworthy that this is a

separate inquiry than that considered in Ripple II and Ripple III, which addressed

upon whom that suggestion of death must be served and in what manner. In those

cases the Court was not asked to determine who was qualified to serve the

suggestion of death. As articulated by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in

interpreting the nearly identical federal rule:

[T]he text of Rule 25(a)(1) contains no such restriction on
who may file the statement. Moreover, such a restriction
is inconsistent with the purpose in amending the rule to
its present format. Prior to 1963, Rule 25(a)(1) “result[ed]
in an inflexible requirement that an action be dismissed
as to a deceased party if substitution [was] not carried out
within a fixed period measured from the time of the
death.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 25 advisory committee notes, 1963
Amendment. The present version of the rule, on the other
hand, establishes a time limit starting from the time
“information of the death is provided by means of a
suggestion of death upon the record.” Id. Thus, Rule
25(a)(1) is designed to prevent a situation in which a case
is dismissed because a party never learned of the death of
an opposing party. Instead, the party is given 90 days
from the time when it learns from compliance with Rule

2. See also Charles Wright & Arthur Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure,
Civil 3d § 1955 (2007):

It has been held that the attorney for the deceased party
may not make the statement noting the death since the
attorney is not a party to the action and, since the
attorney’s authority to represent the deceased terminated
on the death, the attorney is not a representative of the
decedent of the sort contemplated in the rule.
-6-
#24999

25(a)(1) of the death of an opposing party to take
appropriate action.

Unicorn Tales, Inc. v. Banerjee, 138 F3d 467, 469-70 (2ndCir 1998). See also Jones

Inlet Marina, Inc. v. Inglima, 204 FRD 238, 240 (ED NY 2001)(“It is permissible for

the former attorney of the decedent to file the suggestion of death, even though the

attorney-client relationship ceased.”); Stoddard v. Smith, 27 P3d 546, 548-49 (Utah

2001)(holding that a suggestion of death may be filed by an attorney for the

decedent).

[¶11.] Additionally, in interpreting a virtually identical rule to SDCL 15-6-

25(a)(1) as allowing the filing by the decedent’s attorney, the Utah Supreme Court

stated:

This interpretation of our rule is consistent with the rule’s
purpose, which is to prevent undue delay in a lawsuit.
The ninety-day time limitation for a party to file a motion
for substitution ensures that the lawsuit will either
continue forward or will be dismissed as to the deceased
party. To accomplish this end, it is not necessary that a
suggestion of death be filed only by a party or the
successors or representatives of the deceased party. A
suggestion of death may be filed by an attorney for the
deceased party.

Furthermore, this interpretation is also consistent with
the ethical obligations imposed on attorneys, including
those whose client dies. An attorney has an ethical
obligation to take the necessary steps to protect a
deceased client’s interests immediately following the
client’s death, as suggested in the comment to rule 1.3 of
the Rules of Professional Conduct;

Unless the relationship is terminated as provided in Rule
1.14, a lawyer should carry through to conclusion all
matters undertaken for a client.

-7-
#24999

Stoddard, 27 P3d at 549. This same provision appears in the comments to South

Dakota Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3.

[¶12.] Although unique, the situation here involving the conflicting

representation of Swenson and Brown’s estate highlights the need for a less

restrictive view of the rule. In the absence of such an interpretation, the case could

continue in the decedent’s name pending another suggestion of death, although her

counsel’s representation has since ceased under that rule- a paradox that would

exist if this Court were to hold the suggestion of death ineffective because the

decedent’s attorney is not qualified to serve the notice as the result of his client’s

death.

[¶13.] Because we hold the suggestion of death was properly served, the

circuit court did not err in dismissing this lawsuit because a motion to substitute

parties was not filed within ninety days of the service of the suggestion of death as

required by SDCL 15-6-25(a)(1). Further, the suggestion that personal service upon

Swenson was required because of her attorney’s conflict of interest is not supported

by the rule and Swenson was properly served. Any issues raised by this record

concerning the conflict of interest are best left for resolution in another proceeding.

[¶14.] Affirmed.

[¶15.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP, ZINTER,

MEIERHENRY, and SEVERSON, Justices, participating.

-8-