951 N.W.2d 268
S.D.2020Background
- Timothy and Rachel Evens married in 2005; they have four minor children and various marital assets including a carpet business and homes in Montana and South Dakota.
- Rachel obtained nursing credentials and later worked rotations hundreds of miles from the family’s Rapid City home, creating marital conflict; Tim filed for divorce in January 2018 alleging irreconcilable differences or, alternatively, extreme cruelty.
- During the case the court granted Tim interim custody and exclusive possession of the Rapid City home after finding Rachel not credible; two contested child exchanges (Aug. 12 and Sept. 3, 2018) involved Rachel physically blocking exchanges and enrolling children in out-of-state schools.
- After a five-day trial the circuit court found Rachel had physically and mentally abused Tim, granted divorce on grounds of extreme cruelty, awarded Tim primary physical custody, set child support, divided marital property (including awarding Rachel a portion of Tim’s FURS retirement via coverture fraction), and ordered an equalization payment and partial attorney-fee award to Tim.
- Rachel failed to comply with post-judgment transfer instructions, the court conditionally stayed execution pending appeal with conditions Rachel did not meet, and the court found her in contempt; Rachel appealed the judgment and the contempt order.
- The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed standards of review (clear error for divorce and contempt findings; abuse of discretion for custody, property division, support, and fee awards) and affirmed all circuit-court rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tim) | Defendant's Argument (Rachel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Grounds for divorce (extreme cruelty) | Court should find extreme cruelty based on physical and mental abuse by Rachel. | Court misweighed evidence and credibility; findings are erroneous. | Affirmed: findings of physical and mental abuse supported; not clearly erroneous. |
| 2. Child custody | Primary custody to Tim is in children’s best interests given parental fitness and Rachel’s conduct. | Rachel argued her role as primary caregiver favored her custody. | Affirmed: extensive best-interest findings supported award to Tim; no abuse of discretion. |
| 3. Property division | Marital assets equitably divided; MPOR non-marital; FURS portion divided via coverture fraction; valuations supported by expert. | Rachel argued pension should be divisible and business valuations were incorrect. | Affirmed: MPOR non-marital; FURS divided; court acted within discretion and relied on available expert valuation. |
| 4. Child support calculation | Court correctly computed net incomes and apportioned support per statute and guidelines. | Rachel claimed certain statutory deductions were improperly handled and income not verified. | Affirmed: statutory methodology applied; calculations reasonable; no abuse of discretion. |
| 5. Attorney fees and costs | Fees partially awarded because litigation was complex and Rachel increased costs with motions and conduct. | Rachel disputed fee award. | Affirmed: court considered statutory factors and parties’ conduct; fee award not an abuse of discretion. |
| 6. Contempt for failure to transfer property/documents | Rachel wilfully disobeyed clear, specific post-judgment transfer directives and stay conditions. | Rachel claimed lack of notice and contested obligations. | Affirmed: contempt elements met (order, notice, ability, willfulness); court gave purge conditions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Midzak v. Midzak, 697 N.W.2d 733 (S.D. 2005) (clear-error standard for grounds for divorce)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 928 N.W.2d 458 (S.D. 2019) (standards for contempt and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Scherer v. Scherer, 864 N.W.2d 490 (S.D. 2015) (view extreme cruelty in full marital context)
- Kreps v. Kreps, 778 N.W.2d 835 (S.D. 2010) (best-interest factors for initial custody determinations)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 864 N.W.2d 10 (S.D. 2015) (broad discretion in classifying marital vs nonmarital property)
- Novak v. Novak, 713 N.W.2d 551 (S.D. 2006) (when property may be set aside as nonmarital)
- Keller v. Keller, 660 N.W.2d 619 (S.D. 2003) (contumacious disobedience requires clear, specific order)
- Hiller v. Hiller, 919 N.W.2d 548 (S.D. 2018) (deference to trial-court credibility and factfinding)