(dissenting).
[¶ 27.] This case presents a real can of worms. The written agreement was modified from time to time and mostly at the insistence of the owners. They insisted on modifications of the written agreement when it was to their advantage and now complain of a modification (not to their advantage).
[¶ 28.] I am satisfied that the trial court and the jury saw this case for what it was. The trial court properly instructed the jury on the issues and it appears the jury did an excellent job of resolving the differences.
[¶ 29.] The award to the Defendant of $25,000 on the counterclaim was the result of a general verdict, without objection or request for any special interrogatories. In the absence of objections to the verdict *557forms or requests for special interrogatories, the verdicts of the jury should stand. See Miller v. Hernandez, 520 N.W.2d 266, 271 (S.D.1994) (holding that the general verdict form did not allow the Court to determine what, if any, damages awarded by the jury may be subject to prejudgment interest); see also Stormo v. Strong, 469 N.W.2d 816, 825 (S.D.1991) (commenting that the trial courts would be “well advised” to submit special interrogatories to the jury in order to eliminate any confusion over an award of damages and to aid in meaningful appellate review).
[¶ 30.] I would affirm the judgment and therefore I dissent.