Nickles v. Nickles, 865 N.W.2d 142

Patrick and Kacie Nickles divorced; the circuit court awarded Kacie primary physical custody with liberal parenting time for Patrick and set child support at $3,800, rehabilitative alimony of $1,000/month for 12 months, and awarded Kacie attorney’s fees of $7,500.
Dr. Bill Moss conducted a custody evaluation finding Patrick stable but lacking strong emotional connection; Moss favored Kacie’s emotional bond and stability as primary factor for custody.
Patrick’s income and assets were contested; the court used incomplete findings on Patrick’s income and deemed his 2013 income uncertain, with potential pass-through income affecting child support.
The court treated Patrick’s 2012 joint tax return and 2013 deposits from Fast Fusion and a loan repayment from Podo Technologies as money potentially available for support, but failed to enter explicit income findings.
Kacie’s rehabilitative alimony lacked detailed findings: the court did not explain educational need, plan to meet that need, or Patrick’s earning capacity and the parties’ post-divorce financial condition.
The circuit court’s property division relied on a general statement of equitable division without factor-specific findings; inherited funds from ROIC LCC were at issue for marital/non-marital classification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the custody award was proper	Patrick argues trial errors on fitness, stability, and M.N.’s preference.	Kacie contends Moss’s analysis supports custody award favoring stability and bond.	Affirmed on custody; other issues remanded for findings
Whether child support findings and amount were proper	Patrick contends income findings and use of pass-through income were improper	Kacie contends calculation aligns with schedule and income presented	Remanded for explicit findings on Patrick’s income and monthly gross income used for support
Whether rehabilitative alimony findings were sufficient	Patrick argues insufficient basis for need and payment ability	Kacie asserts need for support given educational plans	Remanded for detailed findings on educational need, plan, and earning capacity
Whether property division findings were adequate	Patrick challenges treating inherited funds as marital and division without factor findings	Kacie asserts equitable division appropriate given all circumstances	Remanded for required findings on marital vs non-marital character and property factors
Whether attorney’s fees award had proper grounds	Patrick argues insufficient analysis of fee factors	Kacie claims reasonable consideration of factors	Remanded for detailed findings supporting fee award; current evidence inadequate

Kreps v. Kreps, 2010 S.D. 12, 778 N.W.2d 835 (S.D. 2010) (best interests framework for child custody analysis)
Pietrzak v. Schroeder, 2009 S.D. 1, 759 N.W.2d 734 (S.D. 2009) (temporal, mental, moral welfare; factors for best interests)
Fuerstenberg v. Fuerstenberg, 1999 S.D. 35, 591 N.W.2d 798 (S.D. 1999) (factors for parental fitness and stability)
Roth v. Haag, 2013 S.D. 48, 834 N.W.2d 337 (S.D. 2013) (balanced application of custody factors; not all must be explicit)
Hill v. Hill, 2009 S.D. 18, 763 N.W.2d 818 (S.D. 2009) (requirement for findings supporting above-schedule child support)
Roberts v. Roberts, 2003 S.D. 75, 666 N.W.2d 477 (S.D. 2003) (pass-through income rules for child support calculations)
Endres v. Endres, 532 N.W.2d 65 (S.D. 1995) (all property state; equity division implications)
Novak v. Novak, 2006 S.D. 34, 713 N.W.2d 551 (S.D. 2006) (factors for division of marital property)
Huffaker v. Huffaker, 2012 S.D. 81, 823 N.W.2d 787 (S.D. 2012) (two-step analysis for attorney’s fees)
Lovejoy v. Lovejoy, 2010 S.D. 39, 782 N.W.2d 669 (S.D. 2010) (weight given to circuit court’s discretion with detailed findings)