South Dakota Codified Laws
S.D. Codified Laws § 53-8-2 (2026)
Contracts required to be in writing--Statute of frauds.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
SD-LEGsdlegislature.gov
JustiaS.D. Codified Laws
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
53-8-2. Contracts required to be in writing--Statute of frauds.
The following contracts are not enforceable by action unless the contract or some memorandum thereof is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or his agent, as authorized in writing:
(1) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof;
(2) An agreement made upon consideration of marriage, other than a mutual promise to marry;
(3) An agreement for sale of real estate or an interest therein, or lease of the same, for a period longer than one year. However, this does not abridge the power of any court to compel specific performance of any agreement for sale of real estate in case of part performance thereof; and
(4) An agreement for a loan of money or for an extension of credit, which agreement may be enforced by a beneficiary for whom the agreement was made, including, but not limited to, vendors of agricultural goods, services or products. A loan or an extension of credit made pursuant to § 51A-12-12 or chapter 54-11 is specifically exempt from the provisions of this section.
Source: CivC 1877, §§ 920, 993; CL 1887, §§ 3544, 3617; RCivC 1903, §§ 1238, 1311; RC 1919, §§ 855, 856; SDC 1939, § 10.0605; SL 1985, ch 381.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: Biegler v. Kraft, 924 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (D.S.D. 2013).
Biegler v. Kraft, 924 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (D.S.D. 2013). “SDCL § 53-8-2 The Krafts have raised as a defense the South Dakota statute of frauds, South Dakota Codified Laws (“SDCL”) § 53-8-2.”
Jacobson v. Gulbransen, 2001 SD 33 (S.D. 2001). “(3) An agreement for sale of real estate or an interest therein, or lease of the same, for a period longer than one *89 year. However, this does not abridge the power of any court to compel specific performance of any agreement for sale of real estate in case of part performance…”
Harriman v. United Dominion Indus., Inc., 2005 SD 18 (S.D. 2005). “] The statute of frauds is codified at SDCL 53-8-2. It provides in relevant part: The following contracts are not enforceable by action unless the contract or some memorandum thereof is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or his agent, as authorized in writing:…”
Tolle v. Lev, 2011 S.D. 65 (S.D. 2011). “” SDCL 53-8-2. [¶ 13.] Tolle argues that SDCL 53-8-2 does not bar her claim because Lev’s 2005 email was a sufficient writing and because the cabin agreement was for the sale of personal property, not real estate.”
Vander Heide v. Boke Ranch, Inc., 2007 SD 69 (S.D. 2007). “Consequently, there was a sufficient basis for the circuit court to determine that there was no oral agreement to modify the written easement. [¶ 25.] Moreover, had Boke and Timothy consummated an oral agreement, it would have been subject to the statute of frauds.”
Wiggins v. Shewmake, 374 N.W.2d 111 (S.D. 1985). “SDCL 53-8-2 requires that an agreement for the sale of real property be in writing, and subscribed by the party to be charged, before the agreement will be enforceable.”
Sabhari v. Sapari, 1998 SD 35 (S.D. 1998). “SDCL 53-8-2. 8 Although Ali challenges tMs as error, we would point out there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s determination that Ali failed to establish fraud through the alleged oral agreements.”
Hahne v. Burr, 2005 SD 108 (S.D. 2005). “The statute, SDCL 53-8-2, provides in relevant part: The following contracts are not enforceable by action unless the contract or some memorandum thereof is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or his agent, as authorized in writing: [[Image here]] (3) An…”
Aamot v. Eneboe, 352 N.W.2d 647 (S.D. 1984). “Eneboes contend that this finding is in error for three reasons: 1) the documents signed by Evelyn are insufficient to meet the requirements of the statute of frauds; 2) the evidence is insufficient to show a ratification; and 3) equitable estoppel cannot be applied to these…”
Amdahl v. Lowe, 471 N.W.2d 770 (S.D. 1991). “Once we ascertain whether a valid, enforceable contract existed, we can then determine whether the trial court's decision to deny specific performance was within the bounds of its discretion.”
Owens v. Moyes, 530 N.W.2d 663 (S.D. 1995). “01 for Owens, the sum of money that Moyes agreed that she owed Owens and which was evidenced by written "IOUs." The trial court concluded that since there was no writing signed by the parties representing the balance of the amount Owens claimed he had loaned to Moyes, the…”
Rousseau v. Gesinger, 330 N.W.2d 522 (S.D. 1983). “The statute of frauds, SDCL 53-8-2, requires agreement involving an interest in land to be in writing.”
— S.D. Codified Laws § 53-8-2(1) — 7 cases
Harriman v. United Dominion Indus., Inc., 2005 SD 18 (S.D. 2005). “] The statute of frauds is codified at SDCL 53-8-2. It provides in relevant part: The following contracts are not enforceable by action unless the contract or some memorandum thereof is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or his agent, as authorized in writing:…”
Tolle v. Lev, 2011 S.D. 65 (S.D. 2011). “” SDCL 53-8-2. [¶ 13.] Tolle argues that SDCL 53-8-2 does not bar her claim because Lev’s 2005 email was a sufficient writing and because the cabin agreement was for the sale of personal property, not real estate.”
Knigge v. B & L Food Stores, Inc., 2017 SD 4 (S.D. 2017).
Sabhari v. Sapari, 1998 SD 35 (S.D. 1998). “SDCL 53-8-2. 8 Although Ali challenges tMs as error, we would point out there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s determination that Ali failed to establish fraud through the alleged oral agreements.”
Trovese v. O'MEARA, 493 N.W.2d 221 (S.D. 1992).
— S.D. Codified Laws § 53-8-2(2) — 1 case
In Re Est. of Smid, 2008 SD 82 (S.D. 2008).
— S.D. Codified Laws § 53-8-2(3) — 15 cases
Vander Heide v. Boke Ranch, Inc., 2007 SD 69 (S.D. 2007). “Consequently, there was a sufficient basis for the circuit court to determine that there was no oral agreement to modify the written easement. [¶ 25.] Moreover, had Boke and Timothy consummated an oral agreement, it would have been subject to the statute of frauds.”
Biegler v. Kraft, 924 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (D.S.D. 2013). “SDCL § 53-8-2 The Krafts have raised as a defense the South Dakota statute of frauds, South Dakota Codified Laws (“SDCL”) § 53-8-2.”
Hahne v. Burr, 2005 SD 108 (S.D. 2005). “The statute, SDCL 53-8-2, provides in relevant part: The following contracts are not enforceable by action unless the contract or some memorandum thereof is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or his agent, as authorized in writing: [[Image here]] (3) An…”
Garrett v. BankWest, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 833 (S.D. 1990).
Von Sternberg v. Caffee, 2005 SD 14 (S.D. 2005).
— S.D. Codified Laws § 53-8-2(4) — 5 cases
In Re Gridley, 149 B.R. 128 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1992).
Owens v. Moyes, 530 N.W.2d 663 (S.D. 1995). “01 for Owens, the sum of money that Moyes agreed that she owed Owens and which was evidenced by written "IOUs." The trial court concluded that since there was no writing signed by the parties representing the balance of the amount Owens claimed he had loaned to Moyes, the…”
Gregory's, Inc. v. Haan, 1996 SD 35 (S.D. 1996).
LBC Holdings, LLC v. ResQSoft, Inc. (D.S.D. 2018).
Fischer v. Fischer-Olson, 2026 S.D. 39 (S.D. 2026).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.