John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight
The owners of a western South Dakota survival bunker community are legally justified in pursuing the eviction of a man who brandished a firearm on the property, the South Dakota Supreme court has ruled.
Daniel Sindorf signed a 99-year lease with the property owner, known as Vivos XPoint Investment Group, in 2020, paying $35,000 upfront for a bunker.
At the time, the community rules did not mention prohibitions on weapon usage. The property includes a shooting range. The U.S. military used the 575 concrete, earth-covered bunkers on the property near Edgemont between 1942 and 1967 to store bombs and other munitions, but the bunkers sat empty until California-based Vivos purchased the property to create what it billed as the nation’s largest survival community.
Following a series of confrontations with neighbors, Sindorf brandished a pistol. He was protecting himself from his neighbors’ dogs, he said, but Vivos said he was threatening other residents.
By the time the incident took place, Vivos had adjusted its community rules to bar the brandishing of firearms, a clause that served as justification for an attempted eviction of Sindorf, although the eviction notice cited a vague rule violation.
Sindorf disputed Vivos’ right to oust him, and the company later pointed to the 2023 altercation as the reason for the eviction. Sindorf no longer lives in the bunker, but has refused to allow Vivos to access the property.
A local judge ruled that Vivos’ decision to change the community guidelines mid-lease rendered the lease “illusory” because the lease contract, as signed, did not include such a provision.
As a result, Sindorf maintained possession of the bunker and the right to keep Vivos out. The judge declined to allow the eviction to proceed.
This state’s high court overruled the local judge.
The lease noted that “the parties expressly agreed that Vivos would be able to modify the community rules and regulations subject only to 30 days’ written notice before the modifications became enforceable,” the ruling says.
Sindorf was given notice of the rule change, according to the ruling. The ruling allows the eviction proceedings to reopen in local court.