Sigler v. Sigler
2017 SD 85
| S.D. | 2017Background
- Arron and Theresa Sigler divorced in 2011; Theresa was awarded primary physical custody of child T.S. and Arron paid child support.
- By early 2016 T.S. began splitting time roughly equally between parents; Arron moved for joint custody, a visitation schedule, and a shared-parenting child support cross-credit under SDCL 25-7-6.27.
- A referee and the circuit court previously calculated support based on incomes: Arron ~ $83,911/yr (72% of combined income), Theresa ~ $25,980/yr (28%). Arron’s obligation was $442/month after adjustments.
- At the October 2016 hearing the court awarded joint physical custody and granted Arron a cross-credit, reducing his support to $25/month, finding (1) the cross-credit would not substantially negatively affect T.S.’s standard of living and (2) Theresa lived beyond her means and could obtain additional employment.
- Theresa appealed, arguing the circuit court made erroneous factual findings and abused its discretion by applying the cross-credit without properly considering whether it would substantially negatively affect the child’s standard of living or whether expenses were shared in proportion to incomes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDCL 25-7-6.27 cross-credit was properly applied | Theresa: Court failed to find that cross-credit would have a substantial negative effect on T.S.’s standard of living; evidence shows her income cannot cover expenses | Arron: No evidence that T.S.’s standard of living would decline; equal overnight split and shared costs justify cross-credit | Reversed and remanded: court did not make required findings under SDCL 25-7-6.27 concerning substantial negative effect or proportional sharing of expenses |
| Whether trial court’s factual findings were supported | Theresa: Findings that she "lived beyond her means" lacked specific support and ignored that basic necessities consumed her income | Arron: Trial court relied on testimony and budget exhibits to justify findings | Court found factual findings inadequate on key points (no identification of which expenditures were unreasonable; insufficient analysis of child expenses proportionality) |
| Whether potential for Theresa to obtain additional employment justified cross-credit | Theresa: Court may not rely on speculative potential earnings to permit deviation | Arron: Theresa testified she could obtain more work; thus reduction would not harm T.S. | Court held trial judge improperly relied on speculation about Theresa’s ability to obtain additional employment without statutory guidance; remand required |
| Appellate attorney’s fees | Theresa requested fees and costs | Arron opposed | Court awarded Theresa $2,375 in appellate attorney’s fees (per SDCL authority allowing fees in support/custody cases) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ochs v. Nelson, 538 N.W.2d 527 (S.D. 1995) (court must consider child’s needs and standard of living when setting support)
- Schieffer v. Schieffer, 826 N.W.2d 627 (S.D. 2013) (disproportionate parental incomes require analysis of whether children’s standard of living would decline; absence of evidence can justify denying deviation or cross-credit)
- Hollinsworth v. Hollinsworth, 757 N.W.2d 422 (S.D. 2008) (courts should not base deviations on speculative potential income; voluntary underemployment considerations are limited)
- Kauth v. Bartlett, 746 N.W.2d 747 (S.D. 2008) (standard of review for modification of child support is abuse of discretion)