Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In 2008, the circuit court entered an order for child support wherein Father would pay Mother child support. In 2010, the circuit court lowered Father’s child support obligation. In May 2012, Mother petitioned the circuit court for a modification of child support. A child support referee ordered Father to pay Mother an additional $1,008 in child support per month since October 2009. The circuit court reversed the referee’s decision, concluding that the child support obligation could not be retroactively modified prior to May 2012 pursuant to S.D. Codified Laws 25-7-7.3, which prohibits retroactive modification of past due child support. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Father’s past due payments were not retroactively modifiable prior to May 2012. View "Wiseman v. Wiseman" on Justia Law

Cynthia Ann Arch filed a petition and affidavit for a domestic abuse protection order against her brother, Myril Arch. The protection order hearing proceeded after it was twice rescheduled. Myril was absent from the hearing, but Myril’s attorney appeared at the hearing on Myril’s behalf, authorized to present a defense. The circuit court proceeded to grant the protection order based on default. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the protection order by a default judgment where Myril appeared at the protecting order hearing by counsel and was authorized to present his defense. View "Arch v. Arch" on Justia Law

After an abuse and neglect proceeding, the circuit court entered a dispositional order terminating the parental rights of Mother to her two biological children. Mother filed a notice of appeal, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Mother’s signature was not on the notice. Mother then filed a second notice of appeal, which the Supreme Court dismissed as untimely. After obtaining an “Amended Dispositional Order” from the circuit court, which contained revisions to the final order, Mother filed a third notice of appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as untimely, holding that the circuit court’s order did not restart the timeframe for appeal, making Mother’s third appeal untimely. View "In re Interest of L.R." on Justia Law

Julia and George Havlik were married for sixty-five years and operated a farm together. The couple eventually separated, and Julia filed for a separation and a division of their marital assets. Julia later sought spousal support. The circuit court divided the parties’ property and ordered George to pay Julia monthly spousal support “to equalize” their social security benefits. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in ordering George to pay monthly spousal support, as there was insufficient evidence reflecting Julia’s need for support and George’s ability to pay. View "Havlik v. Havlik" on Justia Law

Christine and Daniel Iiams were appointed as temporary guardians and conservators of two children. The Iiamses let their temporary guardianship and conservatorship lapse and agreed to the appointment of another couple as permanent guardians and conservators of the children. The Iiamses then filed a motion to recover the attorney’s fees they incurred while they were the temporary guardians and conservators. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the Iiamses were personally responsible for paying the attorneys’ fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the guardianship and conservatorship attorney was statutorily entitled to reasonable compensation from the children’s estate, and the circuit court erred in requiring attorney’s fees to be recovered from the Iiamses personally. Remanded. View "In re Guardianship of G.T.C." on Justia Law

During their marriage, Brian Shabino and Sandra Wichman borrowed money from Sandra’s mother, Mary Ann Wichman, to use as a down payment on the purchase of their home. When Sandra and Brian divorced in 2003, the divorce decree apportioned to Brian the marital home as well as the remaining debt to Mary Ann. Brian failed to repay Mary Ann, In 2012, Mary Ann brought suit for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and enforcement of the divorce decree. The circuit court concluded that a portion of Mary Ann’s breach of contract claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that Mary Ann could not enforce the terms of the divorce decree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in determining that Mary Ann could not enforce the divorce decree; and (2) the circuit court did not err in ruling that Mary Ann could not recover the entirety of the debt under the statute of limitations. View "Wichman v. Shabino" on Justia Law

When Mother and Father divorced, Mother alleged that Father sexually abused one of the parties’ two children. The circuit court granted sole physical custody of the children to Mother and granted Father supervised visitation. Mother appealed, arguing, among other things, that the circuit court abused its discretion by granting Father visitation. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s visitation order, holding that the circuit court erroneously concluded that it could not prohibit visitation and applied the incorrect burden of proof to the allegations of sexual abuse. Remanded for a determination of whether visitation with Father was in the children’s best interests.View "Pieper v. Pieper" on Justia Law