Lexplug logoLexplug

First State Bank of Sinai v. Hyland

Supreme Court of South Dakota
399 N.W.2d 894 (1987)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A contract entered into by an intoxicated person is voidable, not void, unless the person was 'entirely without understanding' of the transaction at the time of signing. Such a voidable contract may be ratified and made fully enforceable if the party, after regaining capacity, fails to promptly rescind and instead takes actions that affirm the contract, such as making a payment on it.


Facts:

  • Randy Hyland's two promissory notes with the First State Bank of Sinai (Bank) became past due.
  • On October 20, 1981, the Bank agreed to consolidate and extend the loans into a single $9,800 note on the condition that Randy's father, Mervin Hyland, cosign it.
  • Randy took the note to his father, Mervin, who signed it while he was reportedly intoxicated.
  • During this same period in the fall of 1981, Mervin, despite heavy drinking and involuntary commitments for alcoholism, continued to transact other business, such as buying cattle, signing checks for farm goods, and executing a separate promissory note with the same bank.
  • The note cosigned by Mervin became due on April 20, 1982, and was not paid.
  • On May 5, 1982, Randy delivered a blank check signed by Mervin to the Bank, which was then filled out to pay the $899.18 of interest owed on the note.
  • Mervin later refused to sign a further two-month extension on the note.
  • On June 22, 1982, Randy Hyland filed for bankruptcy, and his obligation on the note was discharged.

Procedural Posture:

  • First State Bank of Sinai (Bank) filed a lawsuit against Mervin Hyland in circuit court to enforce a promissory note he had cosigned.
  • Mervin Hyland defended by asserting he was incapacitated by alcohol at the time of signing.
  • Following a trial to the court, the circuit court (trial court) entered a judgment in favor of Mervin Hyland.
  • The trial court found that Mervin was incompetent when he signed the note, rendering the obligation void, and that he had not subsequently ratified it.
  • The Bank, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a promissory note signed by an individual suffering from alcoholism voidable, rather than void, and subsequently ratified when that individual, after the fact, provides a check to pay the interest due on the note?


Opinions:

Majority - Henderson, Justice

Yes. A promissory note signed by an intoxicated person is merely voidable unless that person was 'entirely without understanding,' and it is ratified if that person subsequently takes action affirming the debt. The court reasoned that for a contract to be void, the party must be entirely without understanding of the nature and consequences of the transaction, a very high standard. Mervin Hyland failed to meet this standard because he was transacting other complex business during the same period, demonstrating he was not entirely without understanding. Therefore, the contract was only voidable. A party wishing to disaffirm a voidable contract must do so promptly upon regaining capacity. Mervin did not promptly rescind; instead, he ratified the contract through his conduct when he provided a signed check to pay the nearly $900 in interest. This act, coupled with his failure to disaffirm in a timely manner, which prejudiced the Bank's ability to collect from his son, transformed the voidable contract into a fully binding obligation.



Analysis:

This case clarifies the high threshold required to render a contract void due to intoxication, limiting the 'entirely without understanding' standard to extreme cases of incapacity. It reinforces the critical distinction between void and voidable contracts, establishing that most contracts made under the influence are merely voidable. The decision emphasizes that a party's subsequent actions are paramount; conduct such as making a payment can easily be interpreted as ratification, solidifying a previously voidable obligation. This strengthens the position of creditors and makes it more difficult for individuals to escape contractual duties by claiming intoxication, particularly when their actions after the fact are inconsistent with disaffirmance.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query First State Bank of Sinai v. Hyland (1987) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for First State Bank of Sinai v. Hyland