Background
Donald Netter, the family trustee of the Six Cataracts Trust, petitioned in 2025 to modify definitions governing the trust’s family and disinterested trustees. His daughter, Arianna Netter, opposed the request and counterpetitioned to vacate a 2013 trust-modification order, alleging that she and her mother had not received notice and that the order had been obtained through fraud.
The circuit court denied both Donald’s petition and Arianna’s counterpetition. Arianna timely filed a notice of appeal but did not serve all required parties. Donald moved to dismiss the appeal and, two days later, filed a notice of review. After Arianna moved to dismiss her own appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed it but allowed briefing on whether Donald’s notice of review could proceed independently.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court dismissed Donald’s cross-appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. A notice of review under SDCL 15-26A-22 is not an independent means of invoking appellate jurisdiction; it depends on a properly perfected notice of appeal.
Arianna’s appeal was not perfected because she failed to complete the required service of her notice of appeal. Donald had not filed his own notice of appeal within the statutory appeal period. His later notice of review was therefore ineffective, and it could not be treated as a timely notice of appeal because it was filed after that period expired.
Key Takeaways
- Timely filing and service of a notice of appeal are jurisdictional prerequisites.
- A notice of review depends on a properly perfected principal appeal.
- A notice of review filed after the appeal deadline cannot be converted into a timely direct appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that a party seeking independent appellate review must file and serve its own timely notice of appeal. A notice of review may preserve review in an existing, properly invoked appeal, but it cannot supply jurisdiction after the principal appeal fails.