In 1994 after the success of Dances With Wolves actor Kevin Costner purchased a 240-acre parcel in Spearditch Canyon from Homestake Mining Company and traded it to the US Forest Service for 900 acres just north of Deadwood in occupied South Dakota and east of the Preacher Smith Monument some of it straddling Whitewood Creek. Costner was ostracized afterwards by the tribal nations signatory to the Fort Laramie Treaty so he funded Tatanka: Story of the Bison, home to several of Peggy Detmers' magnificent bronze sculptures.
After receiving only $310,000 of $4 million allegedly promised to Detmers she sued Costner in 2008 for breach of a contract they signed in 2000. It took Detmers nine years to complete the bronzes commissioned for the resort euphemistically known to locals as the Un-Dunbar property until Costner sold most of it in 2020.
Detmers argues Costner not only reneged on a promise but that a lower court erred on a definition of “permanent.” So in March as part of its spring traveling session the South Dakota Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments for a second time in Detmers v. Costner.
On Thursday a unanimous decision sent the case back to the Fourth Circuit in Lawrence County saying Judge Eric Strawn indeed ruled incorrectly. According to Chief Justice Steven Jensen, “The circuit court erred in its conclusion that Costner had no remaining obligation under paragraph three of the Agreement after the parties agreed to display the sculptures at Tatanka.”
In my sculpture court case, the local judge literally chose to ignore the evidence where my client backed up my testimony in 3 publications. Then that judge said I was less believable! The Appeals Court sided with me due to taking into account the ignored evidence. Then, when it got to the SD Supreme Court, who ruled against me, one of the judges argued, "It was unrealistic that the artist believed her client could live up to the clause"-- in a contract that he signed???!!! Legal scholars are saying that argument from a judge obviously does not follow business law and puts at risk any contract written in the state of South Dakota.
PUBLIC NOTICE - The SD Supreme Court ruled I accepted that my sculptures were to remain on permanent display at Tatanka. I gave my client a 2 million dollar discount to be a part of a luxury resort on that property of which Takanka was to become a part of, as my client himself stated to that Supreme Court. If he is unable to comply with that I have the right to demand the sculptures to be sold, of which I am to receive 50% of the sale, minus the firm hard costs of the production of those sculptures. In the meantime, I have 20% of that copyright for sale for items in 3D form, and 5% in souvenir form. I am opening up the sale of those copyright ownerships to the public. [Detmers, Faceberg post now deleted]Homestake dumped cyanide and other toxins into Whitewood Creek for a hundred years so the waterway was named a Superfund site in 1981. But, before selling to Canadian miner Barrick, Homestake and Costner restored some of it in 1994 and the stream was taken off the Superfund list in 1996 when their deal with Costner was settled.
It’s believed Costner’s net worth is somewhere around $320 million.
The listing for the $7 million property is linked here and in March the broker told an interested party via text that the sculptures are not part of the sale but will indeed be moved if and when the property sells.
No comments:
Post a Comment