Fin-Ag, Inc. v. Watertown Livestock Auction, Inc.

2008 SD 49, 754 N.W.2d 23, 2008 S.D. LEXIS 77, 2008 WL 2469189

• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
• Decided: June 18, 2008
• Docket: 24050
• Status: Published

Opinions

ZINTER, Justice.

[¶ 1.] This appeal arises from an action for conversion by Fin-Ag, Inc. against Wa-tertown Livestock Auction, Inc. Fin-Ag alleges it had a perfected security interest in cattle sold at Watertown under the name C & M Dairy. The case involves numerous issues regarding a commission merchant’s liability for conversion when the collateral involves farm products covered by the Food Security Act (FSA), 7 USC § 1631 (1985). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the circuit court concluded that Watertown converted Fin-Ag’s collateral.

[¶ 2.] This case involves the same debtors¹ and creditor, and the same type of cattle sales considered in Fin-Ag, Inc. v. Cimpl’s, Inc., 2008 SD 47, 754 N.W.2d 1, 2008 WL 2469183; Fin-Ag, Inc. v. Pipestone Livestock Auction Market, Inc., and Fin-Ag, Inc. v. South Dakota Livestock Sales of Watertown, Inc., 2008 SD 48, 754 NW.2d 29, 2008 WL 2469194. In fact, the circuit court’s memorandum decision in Fin-Ag, Inc. v. South Dakota Livestock Sales of Watertown was the basis for the circuit court’s decision in this case. Because we considered the same core issues² involving virtually identical transactions in the prior cases, we reverse and remand this case for further proceedings in accordance with those decisions.

[¶ 3.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and MEIERHENRY, Justice concur. [¶ 4.] SABERS and KONENKAMP, Justices, dissent in part and concur in part.

1 . Berwalds includes the following persons and entities: Calvin Berwald, Michael Ber-wald, Kimberly Berwald, Berwald Brothers (a general partnership including Calvin and Michael Berwald as general partners), and Sok-ota Dairy, LLC.

2 . Watertown Livestock raises one additional argument under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 USC § 181, attempting to distinguish Consolidated Nutrition, L.C. v. IBP, Inc., 2003 SD 107, 669 N.W.2d 126. We decline to review that argument because it was not presented to the circuit court.