Scherf v. Myers
South Dakota Supreme Court
1DissentWollman, Justice
I agree that the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that defendant converted the guardianship funds. I would also uphold the trial court’s award of punitive damages.
Defendant contends that there could have been no conversion in the instant case because plaintiff had agreed that the insurance proceeds be disbursed to pay the Meid-ingers’ bills and to increase their equity in the real estate that they were purchasing. Although it is true that there can be no conversion where the property is obtained through the consent of the owner, Van Dusen & Co. v. Arnold, 5 S.D. 588, 59 N.W. 961;…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Viner v. UntrechtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Russell v. United Pacific InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Rist v. KarlenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1976
- Bahr v. BahrSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1970
- Dornbusch v. DornbuschSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1968
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.