LBM, Inc. v. Rushmore State Bank, 1996 SD 12, ¶ 28, 543 N.W.2d 780, 785. Rather, the relationship between a bank and its borrower is generally considered to be a debtorcreditor relationship "which imposes no special or fiduciary duties on a bank." Id. (citing Waddell v. Dewey County Bank, 471 N.W.2d 591, 593 (S.D. 1991)). However, this Court has recognized that a fiduciary duty may arise between a lender and a borrower if there is a relationship of trust and confidence. Garrett v. BankWest, 459 N.W.2d 833 (S.D. 1990), is South Dakota's seminal case considering this issue.
Our task on appeal is to determine only whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied. If there exists any basis which supports the ruling of the trial court, affirmance of a summary judgment is proper.Waddell v. Dewey Cnty. Bank, 471 N.W.2d 591, 593 (S.D. 1991) (citations omitted). "Summary judgment is generally not feasible in negligence cases because the standard of the reasonable man must be applied to conflicting testimony. . . . It is only when the evidence is such that reasonable men can draw but one conclusion from facts and inferences that they become a matter of law and this occurs rarely."
[¶ 24.] "[T]he relationship between a bank and its borrower is generally considered to be a debtor-creditor relationship `which imposes no special or fiduciary duties on a bank.'" Id. ¶ 26, 743 N.W.2d at 420 (quoting LBM, Inc. v. Rushmore State Bank, 1996 SD 12, ¶ 28, 543 N.W.2d 780, 785 (citing Waddell v. Dewey County Bank, 471 N.W.2d 591, 593 (S.D. 1991))). A successful banking relationship requires a customer to have a certain degree of trust and confidence in the bank.
On appeal, our task is to determine only whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied. Harn v. Continental Lumber Co., 506 N.W.2d 91, 94 (S.D. 1993) (citing Lamp v. First Nat. Bank of Garretson, 496 N.W.2d 581 (S.D. 1993); Waddell v. Dewey County Bank, 471 N.W.2d 591 (S.D. 1991)). We are not bound by the factual findings of the trial court and must conduct an independent review of the record.
Our task on appeal is to determine only whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied. If there exists any basis which supports the ruling of the trial court, affirmance of a summary judgment is proper."Lamp v. First Nat'l Bank, 496 N.W.2d 581, 583 (S.D. 1993) (quoting Waddell v. Dewey Cnty. Bank, 471 N.W.2d 591, 593 (S.D. 1991) (citations omitted)). "Courts encourage settlements in divorce actions. Contractual stipulations in divorce proceedings are governed by the law of contracts.
Our task on appeal is to determine only whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied. If there exists any basis which supports the ruling of the trial court, affirmance of a summary judgment is proper.Waddell v. Dewey County Bank, 471 N.W.2d 591, 593 (S.D. 1991) (citing Garrett v. Bank West, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 833, 836-37 (S.D. 1990)). With these standards in mind, we review the trial court's granting of summary judgment thereby dismissing Eassons' negligent leasing claim and dismissing Joan C. Eggers as a defendant.
The standard of review for a grant or denial of summary judgment is well settled in this jurisdiction. As we recently set forth in Waddell v. Dewey County Bank, 471 N.W.2d 591 (S.D. 1991), the principal considerations are as follows: `In reviewing a grant or a denial of summary judgment under SDCL 15-6-56(c), we must determine whether the moving party demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and showed entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law.
Mash failed to cite authority to support his argument as to this issue, and it is deemed waived. SDCL 15-26A-60(6) (1984); Waddell v. Dewey Cty. Bank, 471 N.W.2d 591, 594 (S.D. 1991); Nielsen v. McCabe, 442 N.W.2d 477, 480 (S.D. 1989). 2.
Hospital urges this Court to use all of Petersen's testimony, including trial testimony, when reviewing the trial court's summary judgment ruling on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. It is true that a party cannot claim a version of the facts more favorable to her claim than her own testimony. Trammell, 473 N.W.2d at 463; Waddell v. Dewey County Bank, 471 N.W.2d 591, 595 n. 3 (S.D. 1991); Miller v. Stevens, 63 S.D. 10, 256 N.W. 152, 155 (1934). However, Petersen has not yet testified on emotional distress.
"' Waddell v. Dewey County Bank, 471 N.W.2d 591, 593 (S.D. 1991) (quoting Garrett v. Bankwest, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 833, 836-837 (S.D. 1990), and Pickering v. Pickering, 434 N.W.2d 758, 760-61 (S.D. 1989)). With these considerations in mind, we address the merits of Andersons' appeal.