South Dakota Military Bunker Community Faces Legal Battles Over Leases and Rules

A sprawling survivalist community established within a former military munitions depot in South Dakota has become the center of multiple legal disputes. Located outside Edgemont, the development known as Vivos xPoint utilizes 575 concrete bunkers originally built in 1942 to store bombs and other military supplies. According to the South Dakota Supreme Court, Vivos acquired the property and began marketing the structures as survival shelters, offering leases spanning 99 years for up to $55,000.

The complex was designed to provide individuals with a secure location to prepare for catastrophic events. The concrete structures are delivered as empty shells, requiring lessees to complete their own interior construction work either by hiring Vivos employees or arranging private contractors. While some occupants view the remote property favorably, others have encountered significant management and interpersonal challenges.

Among the residents who secured a 99-year lease is Philippe Briggs, a retired Los Angeles police detective and former Army reservist. Briggs noted to the Wall Street Journal that he paid $25,000 for his lease several years ago and utilizes the site as a vacation spot and potential emergency shelter, adding that he has experienced no issues with property management.

However, other agreements have sparked formal litigation. In the case of Daniel Sindorf, who paid $35,000 upfront for a lease in July 2020, Vivos retained the contractual authority to alter its community rules upon providing at least 30 days of written notice. Vivos later sought to evict Sindorf over an alleged rule violation, prompting him to challenge the enforceability of the contract.

The legal dispute reached the South Dakota Supreme Court in April 2026. In the case of Vivos xPoint Investment Group v. Sindorf, the state's highest court ruled that the 99-year agreement was not an illusory contract simply because the company reserved the right to modify community regulations. The Supreme Court reversed a lower-court ruling that had invalidated the contract and remanded the matter for further proceedings, emphasizing that the arrangement was valid because Sindorf exchanged payment for the lease of a survival bunker.

Beyond contractual disagreements, residents have raised concerns regarding property management, community fees, infrastructure conditions, and unfulfilled amenities. The litigation surrounding the development has also involved other individuals, including a separate legal challenge concerning resident David Streeter and Vivos contractor Kelly Anderson.

According to court testimony, Streeter purchased a bunker in July 2023 and soon encountered problems with the property's septic system. After registering complaints with management, Streeter alleged that Vivos personnel began monitoring his family, making gestures, and driving past his residence at excessive speeds. On August 23, 2024, a confrontation occurred between Streeter and Vivos employee J.R. Rodriguez after Streeter followed Rodriguez's vehicle to address speeding concerns.

Approximately 45 minutes later, Rodriguez and another employee visited Streeter's property, prompting contractor Kelly Anderson to confront Streeter directly. Court records indicate that Anderson signaled his intent to confront Streeter via messages to an acquaintance, who subsequently warned Streeter. When Anderson arrived at the residence, Streeter shot him in the chest. Anderson survived the shooting and initiated a civil lawsuit.

A circuit court subsequently determined that Streeter acted in self-defense and granted him immunity from civil liability under South Dakota law. In March 2026, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the decision, focusing strictly on the claim of self-defense and civil immunity rather than validating all preceding allegations made against Vivos personnel.

The unfolding disputes at Vivos xPoint illustrate the complex social, contractual, and legal challenges that can arise within large-scale survivalist ventures. While the location continues to function as a community built from former military infrastructure, its day-to-day reality has become defined by courtroom battles, property management disputes, and personal conflicts rather than purely disaster-preparedness objectives.