Havlik v. Havlik, 857 N.W.2d 422

Julia and George Havlik, married 65 years, operated a family farm and later separated; Julia sued George on various theories and sought division of marital assets and spousal support.
The parties received equal property awards (each ~$504,487) and split farmland; George was ordered to make a $78,122 equalization payment and each received half the farmland producing $48,000/yr in rental income.
On September 6, 2011 (following an April 19, 2011 hearing), the court ordered George to pay Julia $300/month "to equalize" their social security disparity and expressly stated the payment "shall be treated as spousal support." The order was not timely served on George.
Julia died in October 2012. The first written notice of entry of any order was not served on George until March 11, 2014, after which George filed a timely appeal from that served order.
At the support hearings the court received no testimonial evidence on expenses, earning capacity, health, or other typical support factors; the $300/month award relied on counsel arguments and the court’s intent to offset social security differences.
The Supreme Court held the appeal was timely but reversed the spousal-support award for lack of sufficient evidentiary findings and because the court improperly aimed to equalize incomes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was George’s appeal timely?	Havlik contends appeal waived because he received the Sept. 6, 2011 order on Jan. 16, 2013 and did not appeal within 30 days.	George argues the 30-day appeal period did not start until written notice of entry was served (Mar. 11, 2014).	Timely — appeal period begins on service of written notice of entry; only notice served was Mar. 11, 2014.
Was the $300 monthly payment property division or spousal support?	Julia contends it was part of property division (not support).	George contends it was labeled "spousal support" and treated as such.	Treated as spousal support — the order expressly labeled it spousal support and was so treated in proceedings.
Was the spousal-support award supported by evidence of need and ability to pay?	Julia asserts the court "considered" factors and evidence from filings and hearings justified the award.	George argues there was no evidence or findings on need, ability to pay, earning capacity, health, or other statutory factors.	Reversed — insufficient evidence and lack of findings on the relevant support factors.
Was the court permitted to equalize incomes via spousal support?	Julia argues equalization was appropriate given social security disparity.	George argues alimony is for need, not income equalization.	Reversed — court improperly used support to equalize incomes rather than to address established need.

In re Guardianship of Murphy, 827 N.W.2d 369 (S.D. 2013) (failure to serve notice of appeal on a party before appeal period expires is fatal)
Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Rock Creek Farms, 813 N.W.2d 122 (S.D. 2012) (timeliness and service requirements for appeals)
Matter of Sales & Use Tax Refund Request of Media One, Inc., 559 N.W.2d 875 (S.D. 1997) (actual notice by mail does not start appeal period without written notice of entry)
Porter v. Porter, 542 N.W.2d 448 (S.D. 1996) (written notice of entry is required to commence the appeal period)
Kallstrom v. Marshall Beverages, Inc., 397 N.W.2d 647 (S.D. 1986) (notice of entry secures certainty about the start of the appeal period)
Lovejoy v. Lovejoy, 782 N.W.2d 669 (S.D. 2010) (alimony is for needs and requires showing of need and ability to pay)
Zepeda v. Zepeda, 632 N.W.2d 48 (S.D. 2001) (support factors to be considered in alimony determinations)
Haanen v. Haanen, 769 N.W.2d 836 (S.D. 2009) (purpose of alimony and factors for award)
Krage v. Krage, 329 N.W.2d 878 (S.D. 1983) (court must consider multiple factors when awarding spousal support)