The South Dakota Supreme Court recently ruled on a significant loan dispute case involving Fischer Farms Partnership and Excel Underground, Inc. The court's decision, issued on June 24, 2026, affirmed a jury's verdict that awarded Fischer Farms $849,550 in damages. This ruling has implications for how informal loan agreements are treated in court, particularly when written documentation is lacking.
The case, Fischer v. Fischer-Olson (Docket Nos. 30786, 30793), centers around a family business dispute. The plaintiffs, Jeffrey Fischer, Allison Fischer, and Fischer Farms Partnership, claimed that they made multiple loans to Excel Underground, Inc., which is owned by Reed Olson and his wife, Missy Fischer-Olson. The loans were made during a financially challenging period for Excel, which was involved in litigation with the Brant Lake Sanitary District over a sewer installation project.
Fischer Farms contended that they loaned over $1 million to Excel from 2014 to early 2018, but Excel argued that most of these loans were never documented and were, in fact, “fictional.” The case went to trial, where the jury ultimately sided with Fischer Farms, leading to the appeal by Excel, which claimed errors in jury instructions regarding the statute of frauds and damages.
Background
Fischer Farms is a general partnership based in South Dakota, with Jeffrey Fischer and his father, Lynn Fischer, as general partners. Allison Fischer is Jeffrey's wife. Excel Underground, Inc. is a corporation solely owned by Reed Olson, who is also the sole officer and director. Missy Fischer-Olson is Reed's wife and the sister of Jeffrey Fischer.
The dispute arose when Fischer Farms sought to recover loans they claimed were made to Excel during a financially strained period for the company. Excel was engaged in litigation with the Brant Lake Sanitary District, which complicated its financial situation. The jury found that Fischer Farms had valid loan agreements with Excel, despite the absence of formal promissory notes for many of the loans.
Fischer Farms filed the lawsuit on July 31, 2020, seeking repayment of the loans. The trial revealed that while Excel acknowledged receiving around $325,000 in loans, it claimed these had been repaid and argued that the remaining balances were fabricated by Fischer Farms.
The Ruling
The South Dakota Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Steven R. Jensen, ruled in favor of Fischer Farms, affirming the jury's verdict. The court rejected Excel's arguments regarding the statute of frauds and the need for a jury instruction on the reasonable certainty of damages. The court stated, "The writings satisfy the evidentiary purposes of SDCL 53-8-2(4) to permit Fischer Farms to enforce the terms of the loan agreement as found by the jury."
Additionally, the court found that the evidence presented, including emails from Missy Fischer-Olson acknowledging the debt, supported the jury's conclusion that valid loan agreements existed. The court also noted that the issue of whether Missy had the authority to bind Excel was not a jury question, as the writings provided sufficient evidence of the debt.
Impact
This ruling sets a precedent for how informal loan agreements can be enforced in South Dakota, particularly when written documentation is limited. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of any written communication, such as emails, in establishing the existence of a loan agreement. This case may encourage other parties in similar disputes to consider the implications of informal agreements and the necessity of maintaining clear documentation.
Moreover, the ruling clarifies the application of the statute of frauds in cases where the existence of a debt is acknowledged through written correspondence. It highlights the court's willingness to uphold jury findings when there is sufficient evidence to support the claims made by the plaintiffs.
What's Next
Excel has the option to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it remains to be seen if they will pursue that route. There are currently no related cases pending that could impact this ruling.