Thursday, May 17, 2012
We've mentioned (here and here) the South Dakota case by a sculpture artist against Kevin Costner -- she alleged that Costner's placement of the sculptures (many large, bronze bison) was a breach of their contract. The Washington Post provides this update:
PIERRE, S.D. — The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled Thursday that actor Kevin Costner did not breach a contract with an artist when he placed commissioned sculptures of bison and American Indians at a different site than was originally planned.
The Hollywood superstar, who filmed much of his Academy Award-winning movie “Dances with Wolves” in South Dakota, paid Peggy Detmers $300,000 to make 17 bronze sculptures for a resort called The Dunbar he planned to build on the edge of the Black Hills gambling town of Deadwood. The resort never was built and the sculptures instead are at his Tatanka attraction near the proposed resort site.
A later contract said if the resort was not built within 10 years or the sculptures were not “agreeably displayed elsewhere,” the sculptures would be sold with Costner and Detmers sharing the proceeds.
Detmers said she spent more than six years creating the sculptures and gave Costner a price break because she anticipated selling smaller reproductions of the sculptures at the resort.
The artist contended in a lawsuit filed in 2008 that because The Dunbar was not built and the sculptures were not “agreeably displayed elsewhere,” the artwork should be sold and she should get 50 percent of the sale proceeds.
But a circuit judge ruled in July that Detmers indicated her approval of the Tatanka location by participating in the site’s development and several events related to its opening in 2003. The Tatanka site, located next to the land where Costner had planned to build The Dunbar, houses the sculptures, a museum and a visitor center.
Detmers argued that she agreed to the placement of the sculptures at the Tantanka site because she was under the impression The Dunbar would still be built.
The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Circuit Judge Randall L. Macy’s finding that Detmers never received any promise or guarantee that the resort would be built. Detmers knew the resort’s future was questionable, the high court said.
The justices also upheld the trial judge’s ruling that the sculptures have been “agreeably displayed elsewhere,” and that the Tatanka site was separate from the Dunbar site.
On the issue of whether the sculptures had been "agreeably displayed elsewhere," The Court reasoned:
The circuit court concluded as a matter of law that the regular meaning of the term “elsewhere” applied. The court noted that Black’s Law Dictionary defines elsewhere as “in another place, in any other place,” and Webster’s Dictionary defined it as “in or to another place.” See Black’s Law Dictionary 560 (8th ed. 2004). Accordingly, there must first be a designated place to determine if somewhere is “another place.” Paragraph three provides: “if The Dunbar is not built within ten (10) years or the sculptures are not agreeably displayed elsewhere.” (Emphasis added.) The designated place is The Dunbar. The circuit court concluded that “elsewhere” meant at a place other than The Dunbar. And because The Dunbar had not been built, Tatanka was elsewhere.
Costner points out that the circuit court and Detmers both assign “elsewhere” its ordinary meaning, i.e., “in another place.” The analysis diverges on whether “in another place” means another place from The Dunbar itself or from The Dunbar’s intended site. Costner asserts that the circuit court was correct in concluding that “elsewhere” is in a place other than The Dunbar resort itself, which, according to the language, must be built. The land could not be built, but the resort could. Furthermore, the terms of the contract plainly do not say The Dunbar site.
* * *
The plain words of the contract unequivocally provide that if The Dunbar was not built or the sculptures were not agreeably displayed elsewhere, then Detmers would be entitled to the relief described in paragraph three. “Elsewhere” must be understood in relation to the named place in the contract – The Dunbar. Costner is correct that to accept Detmers argument would rewrite the contract to include The Dunbar’s intended location as well as the resort itself. This we will not do. See Culhane v. W. Nat’l Mut. Ins. Co., 2005 S.D. 97, ¶ 27, 704 N.W.2d 287, 297 (“[W]e may neither rewrite the parties’ contract nor add to its language . . . .”). As a matter of law, the court did not err in its conclusion that Tatanka was elsewhere from The Dunbar. This conclusion is supported by giving the terms in the parties’ contract their plain and ordinary meaning.
Detmers v. Costner (S.D. S. Ct. May 9, 2012).
[Meredith R. Miller]