Conti v. Conti, 967 N.W.2d 10

Parties married ~23 years; divorce trial held Aug–Sep 2018. Parties had a joint property exhibit that listed the marital residence at $384,300 (2017 county assessment).
Kibbe and her father (Edward) co-owned a Major Lake property (tenants in common); Edward died during the proceedings. Marital funds of $1,000 (down payment) and $4,000 (modular home) were paid toward that property.
At trial/exchange of exhibits: Russell valued Major Lake at $130,000; Kibbe’s realtor-based valuation was $117,000. An October 2018 appraisal valuing the marital home at $327,000 was admitted without testimonial foundation.
Kibbe moved to supplement the record in 2019 asserting the marital home had risen in value; her expert (automated tool) testified to $422,360; another CMA witness testified to ~$390,000. Russell urged the court to rely on the 2018 appraisal ($327,000).
In April 2020 the circuit court: valued the marital residence at $327,000, treated the Major Lake property as marital and awarded it to Kibbe (but did not clearly account for the mortgage), and ordered Kibbe to pay Russell a cash equalization of $11,435.96.
Kibbe appealed arguing (1) the $327,000 valuation was unsupported and clearly erroneous, (2) the Major Lake property should not have been included as marital (or if included the mortgage should have been credited), and (3) the equalization payment/resulting math was incorrect; the Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Russell)	Defendant's Argument (Kibbe)	Held
Valuation of marital residence	Court may adopt the Oct 2018 appraisal ($327,000); Kibbe reopened valuation so court could reconsider	$327,000 appraisal was admitted without testimony linking it to the divorce date; evidence supported higher valuation ($390k–$422k)	Reversed: $327,000 valuation was not supported by evidence as of divorce date; remand to revalue and enter findings based on value at time of divorce (or identify special circumstances)
Inclusion/classification of Major Lake property	Treat property as marital and award to Kibbe (court may divide all property)	Property was purchased with her father, Russell made no contribution; should be nonmarital or at least mortgage must be counted	Reversed in part: circuit court made insufficient specific findings on contributions and whether contributions were more than de minimis; remand to apply statutory/factor analysis and make express findings on classification and valuation
Cash equalization calculation ($11,435.96)	New valuation/assignment proposed by Russell supports that equalization	Court failed to subtract mortgage and treated reimbursement payments inconsistently; math and allocations are erroneous	Reversed: equalization amount is based on unsupported valuations and calculation errors (e.g., failing to account for mortgage, treating payments inconsistently); remand to recalc after revaluation and reclassification

Giesen v. Giesen, 911 N.W.2d 750 (2018 S.D. 36) (trial court valuations reviewed for clear error)
Schieffer v. Schieffer, 826 N.W.2d 627 (2013 S.D. 11) (standard for overturning factual findings)
Kreps v. Kreps, 778 N.W.2d 835 (2010 S.D. 12) (appellate review principles for findings)
Johnson v. Johnson, 734 N.W.2d 801 (2007 S.D. 56) (trial court not required to accept party valuations)
Hill v. Hill, 763 N.W.2d 818 (2009 S.D. 18) (valuation must fall within reasonable range based on evidence)
Pieper v. Pieper, 841 N.W.2d 781 (2013 S.D. 98) (marital estate valuation date is generally date of divorce)
Duran v. Duran, 657 N.W.2d 692 (2003 S.D. 15) (same rule and special-circumstances exception)
Ahrendt v. Chamberlain, 910 N.W.2d 913 (2018 S.D. 31) (factors for classifying and dividing property; de minimis contribution rule)
Field v. Field, 949 N.W.2d 221 (2020 S.D. 51) (review for abuse of discretion on marital/nonmarital classification)
Midzak v. Midzak, 697 N.W.2d 733 (2005 S.D. 58) (South Dakota is an "all property" state subject to equitable division)
Anderson v. Anderson, 864 N.W.2d 10 (2015 S.D. 28) (nonmonetary contributions may justify distribution; de minimis threshold discussed)
Halbersma v. Halbersma, 738 N.W.2d 545 (2007 S.D. 91) (error where trial court mischaracterized contributions as de minimis)