Geier v. Geier
2013 S.D. 24
| S.D. | 2013Background
- Janet Geier appeals from the trial court’s denial of her SDCL 15-6-60(b) motion to set aside a divorce judgment.
- James Geier initiated divorce proceedings in Feb. 2011 while Janet, then 54, suffered from multiple sclerosis and other health issues.
- The separation agreement was signed Sept. 6, 2011, largely prepared by James’s attorney with Janet reportedly under strong infirmities and without independent legal counsel.
- The agreement awarded James a disproportionate share of marital property and waived alimony; the judgment of divorce was entered Sept. 12, 2011.
- After Janet’s health deteriorated, guardian proceedings began (October–November 2011), and she opposed enforcement of the judgment via a set-aside motion filed Jan. 2012, which the trial court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying set-aside relief | Geier (Janet) claims exceptional circumstances and meritorious defense. | Geier (James) argues no abuse; judgment should stand. | Yes; trial court abused discretion. |
| Whether Janet’s interrogatories should have been answered | Requests sought property valuations and accountability. | Requests were improperly delayed due to protective order. | Interrogatories should have been addressed. |
| Whether Janet’s affidavit should have been considered | Affidavit supports meritorious defense and excusable neglect. | Court did not permit post-hearing affidavit consideration. | Affidavit could be considered; merits require consideration. |
| Whether exceptional circumstances and meritorious defense were shown | Infirmities and lack of counsel constitute exceptional neglect; probable defense exists. | No exceptional circumstances or meritorious defense proven. | Yes; exceptional circumstances and probable meritorious defense shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lowe v. Schwartz, 716 N.W.2d 777 (S.D. 2006) (liberally grant relief to preserve justice; abuse of discretion shown on set-aside review)
- Crothers v. Crothers, 630 N.W.2d 103 (S.D. 2001) (requirement to show exceptional circumstances and meritorious defense)
- Frieberg v. Frieberg, 509 N.W.2d 415 (S.D. 1993) (meritorious defense can be prima facie; not two trials on merits)
- Action Carrier, Inc. v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 697 N.W.2d 391 (S.D. 2005) (liberality in equity; justice must be done in light of facts)
- Sjomeling v. Stuber, 615 N.W.2d 613 (S.D. 2000) (excusable neglect and merits inquiry in set-aside)