Does laches bar Cleones claim to a share of Harveys retirement plan?
[¶14] Harvey argues laches bars Cleone’s claim to part of his retirement plan benefits. For laches to bar an action, the defendant must show (1) the plaintiff had full knowledge of the facts upon which the action is based, (2) regardless of that knowledge, the plaintiff engaged in an unreasonable delay before commencing suit, and (3) allowing the plaintiff to maintain the action would prejudice the defendant. See City of Sioux Falls v. Miller, 492 NW2d 116, 120 (SD 1992). Here, resolution of the first issue establishes Cleone did not have full knowledge of the facts upon which the action was based. Harvey has also failed to make any showing of prejudice in allowing Cleone to maintain her action. Accordingly, any contention that laches bars Cleone’s action is meritless. ATTORNEY’S FEES [¶15] Cleone has filed a motion for an award of $3,136.54 in appellate attorney’s fees. The motion is accompanied by an itemized statement of costs incurred and legal services rendered in accord with Malc
Related Questions
- My claim was submitted after the original Bar Date (March 31, 2003) and I was listed in Schedule IV and V of the Receivers Motion for Hearing on June 4, 2007. Is my claim still late?
- Does the Department of Public Welfare require that the institutionalized spouse claim the elective share?
- Does laches bar Cleones claim to a share of Harveys retirement plan?
