829 N.W.2d 155
S.D.2013Background
- Father sought to modify Mother’s child support upward after job loss; inheritance received and expected was treated as monthly income.
- Referee treated inheritance ($260,000 total) as monthly income for one year, offsetting Mother’s obligation.
- Mother’s net monthly income from employment was $1,449.92; Father’s unemployment income was $1,392.64.
- Circuit court adopted the referee’s use of inheritance, reducing Mother’s obligation from $277 to $216.
- Court held lump-sum inheritance not monthly income under SDCL 25-7-6.3 and remanded for reconsideration.
- Statutory framework allows considering assets if child’s needs are unmet; inheritance considered only as asset, not income here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a lump-sum inheritance income for child support? | Crawford: inheritance should be included as monthly income. | Schulte: inheritance qualifies as income to modify support. | No; inheritance not monthly income; must be treated as asset. |
| Should the inheritance be annualized as income for one year? | Crawford: include as monthly income for one year. | Schulte: treat as regular income under schedule. | Not applicable; cannot include as monthly income. |
| Is SDCL 25-7-6.5 applicable to consider inheritance? | Crawford: assets may be considered if needs unmet. | Schulte: not warranted here. | Inheritance not to be considered since needs met. |
| Should the court apply the $20,000 combined-income cap strictly? | Crawford: cap applies; need rationale. | Schulte: cap should be used with actual needs; not met here. | Remand for reconsideration of needs vs. cap. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peterson v. Peterson, 2000 S.D. 58, 610 N.W.2d 69 (S.D. 2000) (nonexclusive list; inheritance not strictly income)
- Gross v. Gross, 355 N.W.2d 4 (S.D. 1984) (pending inheritance; not clearly income under later law)
- Nace v. Nace, 2008 S.D. 74, 754 N.W.2d 820 (S.D. 2008) (income determination; speculating inheritance not income)
- Dahl v. Dahl, 2007 S.D. 64, 736 N.W.2d 803 (S.D. 2007) (clearly erroneous standard and de novo review for income source)
- Arneson v. Arneson, 2003 S.D. 125, 670 N.W.2d 904 (S.D. 2003) (statutory interpretation of income sources and assets)