Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The circuit court granted a divorce to Husband and Wife on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. Husband appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in (1) determining that the interest and penalties on the parties’ IRS tax liability was Husband’s nonmarital debt; (2) awarding spousal support of $1,000 per month to Wife for a period of ten years to follow the sale of the marital home; and (3) ordering Husband to pay all mortgage, insurance, and property-tax payments on the marital home until its sale. Further, the Court held that Husband must pay Wife’s appellate attorney fees. View "MacKaben v. MacKaben" on Justia Law

At the time of the divorce of Mother and Father, the parties agreed that Mother would have primary physical custody of the parties’ two children. Five years later, the circuit court changed primary physical custody from Mother to Father. The next year, Mother filed a motion for a change of custody. After a trial, the circuit court held that it was in the best interests of the children for Mother to again have primary physical custody. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in finding that a substantial change in circumstances was not required to change custody; but (2) it was in the best interests of the children to change primary physical custody back to Mother based on a substantial change in circumstances. View "McCarty v. McCarty" on Justia Law

Julie and Grant Rush were married in 1990 in Pennsylvania. In 2012, Grant left the marital home in Pennsylvania and moved into his mother’s home in South Dakota. That same year, Julie filed a “Uniform Support Petition” in Pennsylvania seeking child and spousal support. Five days later, Grant filed for a divorce in South Dakota. The circuit court dismissed the divorce action for lack of jurisdiction and on the grounds of the forum non conveniens doctrine, concluding that Grant was not a true South Dakota resident at the time he filed for divorce and that, under the forum non conveniens doctrine, Pennsylvania was the more appropriate and convenient forum for this divorce matter. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because there was substantial evidence in the record that Grant established actual residency in South Dakota in 2012 for purposes other than obtaining a divorce, the circuit court erred when it concluded that it did not have personal jurisdiction over the parties in this proceeding; and (2) the circuit court erred in dismissing Grant’s divorce action based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens because Grant properly commenced the divorce action in South Dakota and no divorce action had ever been commenced in Pennsylvania. View "Rush v. Rush" on Justia Law

Mother brought an action against Father to establish Father’s child support obligation and to determine arrearages. A child support referee recommended that Father receive a credit for mortgage payments as well as for food, clothing, and school supplies Father had purchased for the children after the parties’ separation and when he was absent from the home. The circuit court adopted the recommendation in part and rejected it in part. Specifically, the court allowed a credit for clothing and school supplies but gave Father no credit for mortgage payments and food, concluding (1) Father was financially bound to make mortgage payments and received benefits from the mortgage payments; and (2) the referee clearly erred in finding that Mother’s testimony denying that Father provided food was not credible. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded to accept the referee’s recommendation, holding (1) there was no significance in the fact that Father had a contractual obligation to pay the mortgage, and Mother and the children also received the benefit of the payments; and (2) the referee did not clearly err in making his credibility finding, and the circuit court erred in concluding otherwise. View "State ex rel. Tegegne v. Andalo" on Justia Law

In 2013, the circuit court entered a divorce decree dissolving the marriage of James and Jennifer Hiller. In distributing the parties’ marital assets, the court ordered that James assume all of the marital debt but $500,000 and ordered him to make best efforts with the bank and cooperate to remove Jennifer “from the liabilities as otherwise provided herein.” When James did not remove Jennifer from the assigned liabilities, the court ordered that it would compel James to sell personal property if he did not remove Jennifer from his assigned liabilities by a certain date. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred when it impermissibly modified the marital property division by forcing James to sell property if he did not restructure or refinance prior to the set deadline; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied James’s S.D. Codified Laws 15-6-60(b) motion to re-open the property division. View "Hiller v. Hiller" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a petition and affidavit for a stalking protection order against Defendant, her former boyfriend. After a hearing, the circuit court entered a written permanent protection order prohibiting Defendant from coming within a distance of 100 yards of Plaintiff for a period of five years. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because Plaintiff failed to timely submit written findings of fact, the Court was left with the circuit court’s oral findings of fact and conclusions of law from the hearing, and the court’s oral findings of fact were insufficient to permit a meaningful review of the court decision; and (2) the circuit court did not err in excluding certain evidence on the basis that it was not relevant. Remanded for findings of fact and conclusions of law. View "Repp v. Van Someren" on Justia Law

When Son was born to Mother and Father, Son received the surname of Father. Mother and Father subsequently divorced, and Mother was granted primary physical custody of Son. Mother later married Stepfather. Mother petitioned to change Son’s surname to a hyphenated surname combining Mother’s new last name and Father’s last name. The circuit court found that Son’s name change was in his best interests and granted Mother’s request to change Son’s surname. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in granting Mother’s request to change Son’s surname; and (2) there is no need to modify the best interests of the child standard to include a finding of clear and compelling evidence by the circuit court. View "In re Name Change of J.P.H." on Justia Law

Patrick Nickles and Kacie Nickles divorced. The circuit court ordered joint legal custody with primary physical custody awarded to Kacie, awarded monthly child support and rehabilitative alimony to Kacie, divided the parties’ property, and ordered Patrick to pay attorney’s fees and costs. Patrick appealed from these decisions. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court’s decision on child custody, holding that the court did not err in its child custody findings or in failing to make an express determination whether Kacie rebutted a purported presumption against her having custody because of her “conviction of domestic abuse”; and (2) reversed and remanded for the entry of findings of fact on all remaining issues, holding that the circuit court’s lack of findings prevented appellate review of the circuit court’s remaining decisions. View "Nickles v. Nickles" on Justia Law

Robert and Betty Scherer obtained a divorce in 2014. The main dispute in the divorce was the inclusion of three businesses in the marital estate. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the trial court (1) did not err by including the businesses in the marital estate; (2) abused its discretion in extending the alimony award beyond Robert’s death and by granting the amount of alimony awarded in this case; (3) did not abuse its discretion when it awarded Betty the sum of two million dollars; and (4) erred by granting Betty a divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty. On remand, the court must consider the property division and alimony together to determine if Betty has demonstrated a need for alimony, and the court must determine whether extreme cruelty existed. View "Scherer v. Scherer" on Justia Law

Dorothea Anderson and John Anderson were married in 1996 and separated in 2012. The parties subsequently obtained a divorce. The circuit court divided the marital assets, including land and cash that John had inherited from his mother during the marriage, and awarded Dorothea child support. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by (1) including inherited and gifted land as a marital asset and divided it as such between the parties; (2) not including in the marital estate cash taken by Dorothea at the time of separation; (3) failing to make an adjustment to the property division for cash inherited from John’s mother; and (4) establishing a child support obligation for John. View "Anderson v. Anderson" on Justia Law