When a husband and wife held twenty acres or more of South Dakota land as joint tenants, were they both considered 'landowners' under Chapter 303 of the 1965 Session Laws and therefore both entitled to vote on watershed district issues affecting the land?

Plain-English summary

South Dakota watershed districts were special-purpose political subdivisions used in the 1960s for soil and water conservation. Chapter 303 of the 1965 Session Laws defined who counted as a "landowner" for purposes of voting on watershed district questions. The AG was asked: if a husband and wife held twenty or more acres jointly, did both count as separate landowners?

The statute read:

"Landowner" means a South Dakota resident owner of not less than ten acres of land, as evidenced by records in the offices of the register of deeds and the clerk of courts in the county containing and proposed or existing watershed district provided, however, that if land is sold under a contract for deed, which is on record in the office of the register of deeds in the county wherein such land is situated, both the landowner and his individual purchaser of such land, as named in such contract for deed, shall be treated as a landowner."

The AG focused on the nature of joint tenancy. Joint tenancy is an estate in land owned by several persons equally. Each joint tenant has an undivided ownership interest in the whole parcel. The AG concluded that because each spouse was an owner of the land, each spouse satisfied the statutory definition of landowner.

The opinion was a one-page interpretation: the answer was YES, both spouses voted.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1967 (approximate, based on the 1965 statute reference). Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. South Dakota's watershed and conservation district statutes have since been recodified, and voting eligibility for water development districts and conservation districts may have different definitions than the 1965 watershed district statute applied here.

What the opinion meant at the time

For a husband and wife jointly holding twenty or more acres in a watershed district, the opinion meant each could cast a separate vote on an issue affecting the district. The pair had two votes per joint-tenant parcel, not one.

For watershed district administrators preparing voter rolls, the opinion meant each joint tenant qualified as a separate landowner. A parcel held in joint tenancy by spouses produced two qualifying landowners, not one.

The opinion addressed only joint tenancy by a husband and wife. It did not address tenancy in common, partnership ownership, or corporate or trust ownership, and did not parse how the "South Dakota resident owner" language would apply to those forms.

Common questions

Q: Is this opinion still good law?
A: Not directly. The 1965 watershed district statute has since been recodified, and the specific voting eligibility rules may differ under current conservation and water district law. Any current question about who votes in a watershed or conservation district election should be checked against the current SDCL and the district's own bylaws.

Q: Why did joint tenancy mean two separate votes rather than one shared vote?
A: Under common-law joint tenancy, each joint tenant owns an undivided interest in the whole. There is no "shared" ownership; each tenant individually owns the entire parcel concurrently with the others. The statute's definition (a resident owner of not less than ten acres) was satisfied by each tenant individually because each tenant owned (jointly) the whole parcel.

Q: Did the ten-acre threshold apply to each tenant separately or to the parcel?
A: The opinion treats the parcel's acreage as satisfying the threshold for each joint tenant. A twenty-acre parcel held by spouses as joint tenants satisfied the ten-acre threshold for both spouses. The opinion does not analyze whether the threshold could be satisfied by aggregating multiple separate parcels under each tenant's individual ownership.

Q: What about a contract for deed?
A: The statute had a special rule: if land was sold under a contract for deed of record, both the landowner (the seller) and the contract purchaser counted as landowners. So a parcel could generate two landowner votes during the contract period. The opinion did not need to apply this rule because the question was about joint tenancy.

Q: Were the registers' records the only source?
A: The statute referenced "records in the offices of the register of deeds and the clerk of courts" in the county. The opinion did not elaborate on what each office's records covered.

Background and statutory framework

Chapter 303 of the 1965 Session Laws defined "landowner" for purposes of voting on watershed districts. The definition the AG quoted required a South Dakota resident owner of not less than ten acres of land, as evidenced by register of deeds and clerk of courts records, with a special rule treating both the seller and the purchaser under a recorded contract for deed as landowners.

The whole of the AG's analysis rested on the nature of joint tenancy: an estate in land owned by several persons equally, in which each tenant owns the land. Because each spouse was an owner of the land, each satisfied the statutory definition and each was entitled to vote. The opinion did not reach any other question about the statute.

Citations and references

Statutes (as cited in the opinion):

• Chapter 303, 1965 Session Laws (watershed districts; "landowner" definition)

Cases: None cited.

Source

• Landing page: https://atg.sd.gov/OurOffice/OfficialOpinions/opinionhtml.aspx?id=1709

Original opinion text

Watershed Districts. Joint Tenants both considered landowners for voting on Watershed Districts.

You have presented the following factual situation to our office for an official opinion:

"Ch. 303, 1965 S. L. defines 'landowner' for the purposes of voting on watershed districts."

You have asked the following question in regard to this statute:

"If a husband and wife are owners of 20 acres or more as joint tenants, would they both be considered as 'landowners' and therefore (both) be entitled to vote on a given issue affecting the District?"

The answer to your question is YES.

The statute reads as follows:

"Landowner" means a South Dakota resident owner of not less than ten acres of land, as evidenced by records in the offices of the register of deeds and the clerk of courts in the county containing and proposed or existing watershed district provided, however, that if land is sold under a contract for deed, which is on record in the office of the register of deeds in the county wherein such land is situated, both the landowner and his individual purchaser of such land, as named in such contract for deed, shall be treated as a landowner."

Joint tenancy is an estate in land owned by several persons equally. There are special rules pertaining to the creation and inheritance of the property, but they are not pertinent to this opinion.

Since both husband and wife are owners of the land, each is entitled to vote in watershed elections.