Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Wife sought a divorce from Husband, the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement to divide their property and debt. The agreement awarded the martial home to Husband, divided responsibility for the two mortgages on the home, and declared that the home be sold, with the proceeds from the sale to pay off any sum remaining on the mortgages. Husband later sold the home and used the sale proceeds to pay off both mortgages. Husband requested reimbursement from Wife for the mortgage debt assigned to her, but Wife refused to reimburse him. Husband filed a motion for order to show cause asking the circuit court to hold Wife in contempt and enter a judgment against her for the amount he paid on her mortgage. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by finding that the agreement was unambiguous and did not err in its interpretation of the agreement; (2) the plain language of the agreement did not require Wife to reimburse Husband; and (3) the circuit court did not err in determining that Husband’s request for an order requiring repaying from Wife would result in an impermissible modification of a final property settlement. View "Coffey v. Coffey" on Justia Law

Jieun Choi and Jason Vandyke were married for about a year and a half before divorcing on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. A stipulation and settlement agreement was incorporated into the divorce decree that provided for alimony in the form of nineteen payments of $1,500 a month to Choi. After making fourteen of the nineteen payments and upon discovering that Choi had been employed full-time by Black Hills State University, Vandyke sought termination of alimony. The trial court ordered termination of alimony, finding that the payments were excessive given Choi’s financial circumstances and ability to work. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in light of the law and circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating alimony. View "Vandyke v. Choi" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the circuit court’s resolution of a protracted post-decree dispute over the division of the parties’ property, a restaurant. The court resolved the property division dispute by awarding Husband the business and converting Husband’s cash-equalization obligation in the property division to alimony to be paid to Wife. The court also found Husband in contempt and denied Wife’s request for attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in modifying the original judgment and decree by converting the property equalization payment to an alimony payment; and (2) the circuit court erred in finding Husband in contempt because the court entered no findings of fact on any elements of contempt. View "Pike v. Pike" on Justia Law

Mother appealed the termination of her parental rights to A.B. She argued that the circuit court abused its discretion when it qualified the State’s witness as an expert under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in light of recently-adopted Bureau of Indian Affairs guidelines interpreting ICWA. She also claimed that the circuit court applied the wrong standard of proof when it terminated her parental rights, and that the State’s expert failed to specifically opine that continued custody of the child with Mother would likely cause serious emotional or physical harm to the child. Lastly, Mother claimed that the least restrictive alternative was to continue Mother’s legal relationship with the child while Father retains full legal and physical custody. From its review of the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Supreme Court found that the trial court’s failure to identify the proper standard of proof was "problematic." The trial court concluded that evidence existed beyond a reasonable doubt that “the best interest of the minor child outweighs” termination of Mother’s parental rights. But the court did not make the requisite inquiry whether the evidence existed beyond a reasonable doubt that Mother’s continued custody of A.B. would likely result in serious emotional or physical harm. The Supreme Court therefore concluded the trial court erred when it terminated Mother’s parental rights without conducting this necessary examination utilizing the proper standard of proof. The matter was remanded for the circuit court to determine-on the existing record-whether evidence existed beyond a reasonable doubt that serious emotional and/or physical damage would likely result were A.B. placed in the legal care or custody of Mother. View "Interest of A.B." on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced in 2014 pursuant to a divorce decree awarding joint legal custody of the parties’ children with primary physical custody to Mother. The court allowed Mother to continue to reside in Sioux Falls, where she moved during the trial, awarded Mother certain property and a cash equalization payment, and ordered Father to pay monthly alimony and $70,000 in attorney’s fees and costs. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court’s award of joint legal custody with primary physical custody to Mother; (2) reversed the circuit court’s division of the parties’ property, holding that the court erred in its recapture and division of certain gifts Father made years before the divorce trial; (3) reversed the award of alimony, holding that Mother failed to carry her burden of introducing evidence of her need for support; and (4) affirmed the award of attorney’s fees and costs. View "Kolbach v. Kolbach" on Justia Law

Father filed for divorce from Mother and sought custody of Daughter. Mother’s sister, Aunt, intervened and sought custody of Daughter. The circuit court awarded custody of Daughter to Aunt, finding that Aunt sought custody of Daughter only until such time as Father or Mother was able to properly care for Daughter and that it was in Daughter’s best interest to remain with Aunt. Father appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the extraordinary circumstance that Aunt has been Daughter’s primary caregiver for almost all of Daughter’s life was sufficient to rebut Father’s presumptive rights; and (2) the circuit court properly considered which custody arrangement was in Daughter’s best interest. View "Aguilar v. Aguilar" on Justia Law

The South Dakota Department of Social Services (DSS) received custody of two minor children after a circuit court terminated the parents’ parental rights through abuse and neglect proceedings. Petitioners were foster parents who had been caring for one child until DSS informed them that it wanted to place the child in the home of other foster parents with the child’s sibling. Petitioners filed petitions for adoption of the two minor children. DSS moved to dismiss the petitions, alleging that Petitioners lacked standing to petition to adopt children that are in the custody of DSS without the consent of DSS. The circuit court denied DSS’s motions to dismiss the petitions, concluding that S.D. Codified Laws 25-6 allowed Petitioners to adopt children within the custody of DSS without DSS’s approval. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioners had standing to initiate adoption proceedings under section 25-6. View "In re Adoption of A.A.B." on Justia Law

The Department of Social Services (DSS) removed Child from the custody of her biological mother two days after Child’s birth. Child was placed in the temporary custody of Foster Parents, who had previously adopted Child’s sister. The parental rights of both biological parents were subsequently terminated. Thereafter, DSS consented to the adoption of Child by Foster Parents instead of Child’s maternal Aunt. Aunt requested a hearing to review DSS’s decision, arguing that she was entitled to adoption placement preference over Foster Parents. The circuit court concluded that DSS did not abuse its discretion in consenting to the adoption by Foster Parents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Aunt failed to establish that she was entitled to placement preference. View "In re Interest of E.M.H." on Justia Law

Attorney Irene Schrunk represented Mary Ellen Nylen in a divorce and was involved subsequent legal matters regarding Mary Ellen and her new husband, Mark Nylen. When Mark served Mary Ellen with a summons and complaint for divorce, Schrunk advised Mary Ellen that Schrunk could not represent her because Schrunk had represented Mark in the past. On July 31, 2014, Mary Ellen’s adult children, Molly and Brendon, commenced this action against Mary Ellen seeking a declaration that Mary Ellen had gifted them personal property. Molly and Brendon sought to depose Schrunk regarding communications she had with Mary Ellen between November 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014. Mary Ellen moved to prohibit the discovery, citing the attorney-client privilege protected the communications. The circuit court determined that the initial communications were privileged but did not extend the privilege to communications and documents shared with Schrunk after January 1, 2014. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mary Ellen failed to meet her burden of proving entitlement to the attorney-client privilege after January 1, 2014, and Mary Ellen waived the privilege with respect to certain documents when she shared with Schrunk privileged communications between Mary Ellen and her current attorneys. View "Nylen v. Nylen" on Justia Law

In 2014, Mother and Father agreed to divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. After a two-day trial, the circuit court granted Mother primary physical custody of the parties’ two children. Father appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion by basing its decision on findings that were unsupported by the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that awarding primary physical custody of the children to Mother was in their best interests. Rather, the court carefully considered the factors relevant to the best interests of the children analysis and appropriately awarded primary physical custody. View "Van Duysen v. Van Duysen" on Justia Law