Schieffer v. Schieffer
2013 SD 11
| S.D. | 2013Background
- Marriage of Kevin and Carmen Schieffer ended in a divorce on irreconcilable differences; custody, child support, and relocation were contested.
- Daughter AC-AS has Down syndrome with heart defect; son AE-VS born May 2010; both children are in dispute over custody and therapies.
- Prenuptial agreement awarded Carmen $5 million if no spousal support;$1 million if spousal support pursued; complex financial entitlements existed.
- Kevin amassed substantial wealth from the DM&E railroad sale (2007); both parties stopped working outside the home after 2008.
- Trial court denied relocation to New York City, awarded joint custody, set a custody schedule, and awarded extensive additional support and medical/therapy costs.
- Appeal challenged custody determination, custody schedule, therapy decision authority, child support calculation (base and additional costs), property offsets, and attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint custody award was an abuse of discretion | Carmen contends amended findings favor Kevin despite factors. | Schieffers argue findings properly balanced Fuerstenberg factors and subfactors. | No abuse; amended findings supported by record; joint custody affirmed. |
| Whether the court abused its discretion adopting Dr. Price’s custody plan over Dr. Ackerman’s | Carmen argues Ackerman more qualified; plan should match her schedule. | Court may weigh conflicting expert testimony and select best interests-based plan. | No abuse; court properly weighed expert opinions and adopted modified Price plan. |
| Whether Kevin may participate in determining financial terms of AC-AS services | Carmen claims Kevin could block services by controlling costs. | Trial court balanced interests; Kevin’s input limited to terms, not blocking services. | No abuse; Kevin’s input permissible; Dr. Blake retains ultimate decision authority. |
| Whether base child support of $2,815/month was properly calculated given high combined income | Carmen argues base should reflect actual needs/standard of living of two high-income children, i.e., ~$9,200. | Court correctly used SDCL 25-7-6.2 schedule; deviations and additional costs address special needs. | Base amount not erroneous; remand/consideration of higher-income standard of living not required; support affirmed. |
| Whether attorney-fee denial and property division were proper | Carmen argues substantial fees warranted; seeks offsets and credits. | Trial court properly exercised discretion based on assets and conduct; offsets denied. | No abuse; attorney fees denied; property division deemed equitable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simunek v. Auwerter, 803 N.W.2d 837 (S.D. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard in custody decisions)
- Kreps v. Kreps, 778 N.W.2d 843 (S.D. 2010) (balanced/systematic approach to Fuerstenberg factors)
- Price v. Price, 611 N.W.2d 425 (S.D. 2000) (consideration of best interests and standard of living in custody)
- Bloom v. Bloom, 498 N.W.2d 213 (S.D. 1993) (actual needs vs standard of living; deviations not automatic)
- Ochs v. Nelson, 588 N.W.2d 527 (S.D. 1995) (high-income child support and sharing of living standard)