Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    2

    Default Case Law Interpretation. South Dakota

    My question involves collection proceedings in the State of: south Dakota.

    Can somebody translate this into lamens terms for me? My interepretation is that a third party making a payment on behalf of the debtor does not reset the statute of limitations. Thanks

    "Where payees of a note were authorized to collect certain accounts due makers and apply the proceeds to payment of note, the indorsement of the accounts collected as payments on the note did not constitute payments made by the makers and did not interrupt the running of statute of limitations. SDC 33.0213, 33.0232."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    18,304

    Default Re: Case Law Interpretation. South Dakota

    You're interpreting it out of context so you are probably getting it wrong. Especially since googling those statute numbers brings up cases from the 1940s.

    Explain what is happening to you that gives rise to the question.

    And provide a link to wherever you got that paragraph from so we can see the whole thing.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: Case Law Interpretation. South Dakota

    Quote Quoting Cneely
    View Post
    My interepretation is that a third party making a payment on behalf of the debtor does not reset the statute of limitations.
    Your interpretation is essentially correct: a payment made to the creditor by a third party to the debtor's account does not restart the statute of limitations (SOL) so long as it was not th debtor who directed the third party to make the payment in the first place. What the court, in interpreting what was then South Dakota Code (SDC) 33.0213 (and is now SDC 15-2-29) stated that for the SOL to be renewed the payment must be one that is voluntarily made by the debtor.

    By the way, what you quoted was not from the case opinion itself but from a headnote provided by a legal publisher, West Publishing. I'll provide the background and the actual quote from the court that is important.

    By way of background, what happened in the case was that Kielman, the defenant, gave a promissory note for $4,000 to Nilsson in 1926. Nilsson sued in 1943 for a judgment on the note since Kielman had not paid it in full. At the time, the SOL to sue for the breach was 6 years and there had been only 2 payments made in the 6 years prior to the filing of the lawsuit. Those payments occurred because Nilsson held trade notes from a grocery store Kielman had run until she sold the grocery store to Nilsson in exchange for house in 1932. This was of course during the great depression and ultimately Kielman was unable to take the house so the deal got unwound. But in the meantime, Nilsson had collected on those debts from the grocery store and, once the deal got unwound, Nilsson credited the money collected to the note that that Kielman owed.

    If either of those debts Nilsson credited would would have reset the SOL then the lawsuit could have gone forward, but the trial court held that the payments did not restart the SOL and thus suit was barred by the SOL. The plaintiff appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court decision. Specifically, the court says that:

    It appears from the provisions of SDC 33.0213 that an acknowledgment or promise to be effectual to interrupt the running of the statute of limitations must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged, but this requirement does not alter or take away the effect of a part payment. It is the settled law of this state that a part payment to be effectual to interrupt the statute must have been voluntary and must have been made and accepted under circumstances consistent with an intent to pay the balance.

    Nilsson v. Kielman, 70 S.D. 390, 392, 17 N.W.2d 918, 919 (1945). So the problem was that Kielman wasn't the one who made the payments nor did she direct Nilsson to credit the note with those funds. Nilsson, the creditor on the note, took it upon himself to credit the note with those funds. Since it was not Kielman who made the payment there was nothing to indicate that she intended to reaffirm the note. And the court said that South Dakota code requires that the debtor acknowledge the debt in writing or by payment. The case has never been overturned by the Court.

    The language the South Dakota Supreme Court used to describe the statute tracks very closely with the language of the current statute, and that indicates that the current version of the statute is likely pretty much the same today as when this case was decided.

    In short, it appears that this case should be good today and therefore the rule in South Dakota is that for the SOL on a debt to renew the debtor himself must either acknowledge the debt in writing or make a payment (or direct the payment) to the creditor. The whole idea is that the debtor is taking some action which shows he acknowledges the debt and his intent to pay it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    6

    Default Re: Case Law Interpretation. South Dakota

    You need to be serious about translating such important information.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    156

    Default Re: Case Law Interpretation. South Dakota

    Quote Quoting adjusterjack
    View Post
    You're interpreting it out of context so you are probably getting it wrong. Especially since googling those statute numbers brings up cases from the 1940s.

    Explain what is happening to you that gives rise to the question.

    And provide a link to wherever you got that paragraph from so we can see the whole thing.
    Pardon me, Mr. self-anointed legal expert, but its you, not the OP that appears to be out of touch! Not only do his conclusion relate to the quoted syllabus and nothing else, but also they are dead on!

    If a link might help clear the fog for you, try this: https://southdakota.lexroll.com/nils...-s-d-390-1945/

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    6

    Default Re: Case Law Interpretation. South Dakota

    Quote Quoting Cneely
    View Post
    My question involves collection proceedings in the State of: south Dakota.

    Can somebody translate this into lamens terms for me? My interepretation is that a third party making a payment on behalf of the debtor does not reset the statute of limitations. Thanks

    "Where payees of a note were authorized to collect certain accounts due makers and apply the proceeds to payment of note, the indorsement of the accounts collected as payments on the note did not constitute payments made by the makers and did not interrupt the running of statute of limitations. SDC 33.0213, 33.0232."


    Perhaps I can help you with translation? But I did not quite understand the translation into which language you are interested in

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    472

    Default Re: Case Law Interpretation. South Dakota

    Quote Quoting LolaPol
    View Post
    Perhaps I can help you with translation? But I did not quite understand the translation into which language you are interested in
    How in the world can you help with translation when you can't even understand what he's asking, dear spam-seeder?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    4

    Default Re: Case Law Interpretation. South Dakota

    Quote Quoting LolaPol
    View Post
    Perhaps I can help you with translation? But I did not quite understand the translation into which language you are interested in
    help me please

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    6

    Default Re: Case Law Interpretation. South Dakota

    Quote Quoting EndyMars
    View Post
    help me please
    I can try to help you. If you need a translator, I can tell you. In our office we often use the services https://thewordpoint.com/services/tr...ption-services We regularly order translations of various documents. We like the quality of the work we do. Perhaps this will be useful to you.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    178

    Default Re: Case Law Interpretation. South Dakota

    You're an idiot if you think this person needs translation services. Take your spam elsewhere.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Emancipation: Emancipation in South Dakota
    By MBrocks in forum Juvenile Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-06-2009, 06:12 PM
  2. Alienation of Affection: Can I Be Sued For This In South Dakota?
    By jiffy73 in forum Divorce, Annulment and Separation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-08-2008, 09:20 PM
  3. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: Shoplifting in South Dakota
    By worstmistakeever in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-21-2007, 07:10 PM
  4. Adoption of Children: Adoption in South Dakota
    By deedee in forum Adoption Law and Surrogacy
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-31-2006, 08:35 AM
  5. Expungement and Sealing: Expungement in South Dakota
    By Wicker in forum Criminal Records
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-23-2006, 06:08 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources