Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Nicole and Michael Hagedorn were married for fifteen years and had two daughters. Nicole later filed for divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty and adultery. The trial court granted Nicole a divorce on those grounds and awarded her alimony of $5,000 per month and attorney fees. Michael appealed the awards of alimony and attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding to Nicole alimony in the amount of $5,000 per month for life; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding $14,419 in attorney fees to Nicole. View "Hagedorn v. Hagedorn" on Justia Law

The district court granted temporary custody of three Native American children to the department of social services. Citing the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (Tribe) contested the custody order by challenging the oldest child's temporary placement and questioning the lack of adherence to relative placement preferences under the ICWA. The court advised that ICWA placement preferences were not yet applicable. The Tribe filed an application for a writ of mandamus or prohibition from the Supreme Court to compel a new temporary custody hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed the Tribe's application for an extraordinary writ, holding that the trial court was not obligated to follow ICWA at temporary or emergency custody proceedings under state law, and therefore, the trial court appropriately rejected the Tribe's invocation of ICWA and requests for a new temporary custody hearing conducted in full accord with ICWA. View "Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. Judicial Court (Davis)" on Justia Law

A father petitioned to modify his child support obligation, requesting that his future payments be reduced to account for overpayments he made after his two eldest sons graduated from high school and reached the age of majority. Concluding that this request would result in a retroactive modification of child support in violation of S.D. Codified Laws 25-7-7.3, the referee denied any reduction for amounts overpaid before the petition was filed. The circuit court adopted the referee's report. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err when it interpreted section 25-7-7.3 to prohibit retroactive reduction of the father's future support obligation to account for his overpayments. View "Heumiller v. Heumiller " on Justia Law

Arla Johnson deeded farmland to her daughter Linda, and son-in-law, Claude Miller. Linda subsequently filed for divorce from Claude. Arla then sued Claude, claiming she was fraudulently induced by him into deeding the land. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Claude. Claude appealed the denial of his motion for attorney’s fees. On appeal, Claude argued Arla's suit was malicious and frivolous, and therefore when the trial court ruled in his favor, he was entitled to attorney's fees. The Supreme Court deferred to the trial court's discretion when it decided the suit was not malicious or frivolous, and affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Johnson v. Miller" on Justia Law

Allison Marie and James (Jim) Joseph Marko married on September 26, 1998. Three children were born of the marriage. Allison was granted a divorce from Jim on grounds of extreme mental cruelty. Jim's visitation with his children was conditioned on his having absolutely no contact with his mistress "Emmy" when the children were in his presence. Allison received sole custody of the children. In this divorce appeal, Jim asserted that the trial judge (1) should have disqualified himself because the judge presided over another case in which Emmy had been "enmeshed"; (2) abused his discretion in restricting visitation; and (3) erred in granting the Allison Marie a divorce on grounds of extreme mental cruelty. Finding no merit to any of Jim's issues on appeal and that the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support the trial court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Marko v. Marko" on Justia Law

M.A.S. (Father) appealed the termination of his parental rights to P.S.E. At the time P.S.E. was removed from Mother’s care, Father lived in California and did not know he had a child in South Dakota. The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applied to these proceedings because P.S.E. was an enrolled member of the Fort Peck Sioux Tribe. Father argued on appeal that the Department of Social Services (DSS) did not make active efforts to reunite the Indian family and that any efforts made were successful. Because the evidence presented shows that DSS provided active and reasonable, though abbreviated, efforts to place P.S.E. with Father, and those efforts were unsuccessful, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights. View "In the interest of P.S.E." on Justia Law

Mother and Father, who were never married, had one child, N.B. After Mother and Father ended their relationship, Mother retained custody of N.B. Mother subsequently entered into another romantic relationship, which produced N.B.'s half-sister, A.K. Later, Father filed an action requesting the trial court to grant him custody of N.B. The trial court granted Father's request, reasoning that Father would provide N.B. with heightened stability. Mother appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that compelling circumstances warranted the separation of siblings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly considered the relevant factors in making its custody determination, and its finding that compelling reasons existed to separate N.B. from her half-sibling was not clearly erroneous; and (2) therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding primary physical custody to Father. View "Beaulieu v. Birdsbill" on Justia Law

Jeannine and Donald Barton divorced, and the circuit court awarded Jeannine permanent alimony, a monetary judgment, and attorney fees. After Donald filed for bankruptcy, the court issued an order clarifying the nature of the monetary judgment. Jeannine and Donald later entered into a settlement agreement regarding the judgment. The agreement, which was not incorporated into the divorce decree, resolved a dispute regarding the judgment and released all present and future claims between the parties. Nine years later, Jeannine moved to modify alimony. The circuit court granted the motion after noting that Donald's financial situation had changed and (1) increased Jeannine's monthly alimony award, and (2) extended Donald's alimony obligation beyond Donald's death. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court's findings when it considered modification did not support a change in circumstances justifying a modification of alimony, as the original divorce decree was not predicated solely on Donald's ability to pay but also took into account Jeannine's need. View "Barton v. Barton" on Justia Law

Anthony Webb appealed an order reducing child support arrearages to a written judgment in favor of his ex-wife, Kathy Webb. The circuit court awarded Kathy a judgment of $71,805. Anthony appealed, arguing that he paid the child support as it came due and that the passage of time should prevent Kathy from recovering. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Anthony presented no testimony at trial, the uncontroverted evidence before the circuit court established the existence and amount of the unpaid child support obligation; and (2) the circuit court did not err by refusing to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel or laches to Kathy's claim, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying Anthony's motion for new trial. View "Webb v. Webb" on Justia Law

Kellie and Doug Rumpca married in August 1990. Around 2005, Glenn Brenner and Kellie became friends. On Labor Day weekend in 2009, Brenner and Kellie had sexual intercourse. In October 2009, Kellie commenced divorce proceedings. In April 2010, Doug brought suit against Brenner for alienation of affections, alleging that Brenner wrongfully, willfully, intentionally, and maliciously interfered with his marital relationship with Kellie, and as a result, he suffered a loss of affection and consortium from Kellie. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Brenner, declaring that there were no affections to alienate. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that conflicting evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Kellie had affection for her husband that Brenner could have alienated. Remanded for trial. View "Rumpca v. Brenner" on Justia Law