928 N.W.2d 458
S.D.2019Background
- Bruce and Kathleen Taylor married in 1987; separated after Bruce’s 2014 stroke and affair; divorce trial occurred in 2016–2017.
- Marital estate exceeded $1,000,000 (home, >$500,000 in retirement/savings); at trial court found Bruce earned ~$15,000/yr and Kathleen ~$44,000/yr.
- Bruce failed to comply with discovery and multiple court orders (business and personal-property valuations, tax returns); court found many disclosures came only on the eve of trial.
- Trial court awarded Kathleen net assets of $661,666 and Bruce $463,957, recalculated child support, upheld interim support through July 31, 2016, ordered $1,000/month spousal support for five years, found Bruce in contempt, and granted Kathleen attorney fees (amount not specified).
- On appeal the Supreme Court affirmed property division, child support, contempt findings, and interim spousal support through July 31, 2016; reversed and remanded the ongoing spousal award and the attorney-fee award for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bruce) | Defendant's Argument (Kathleen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Division/valuation of marital assets (home, Taylor Made Homes, liabilities) | Court misvalued assets (home, business), should have credited Bruce for life-insurance proceeds and some payments; division inequitable | Court properly used evidence range, Bruce’s noncompliance justified adverse credibility/value inferences | Affirmed: court’s valuations and 59/41 split not an abuse given Bruce’s discovery failures and evidence presented |
| 2. Interim and post-trial spousal support | Interim support lacked solid income evidence; trial showed Bruce couldn’t afford support; court should have terminated interim order effective Aug 1, 2016 and not awarded ongoing alimony | Interim support appropriate given lack of information caused by Bruce’s discovery failures; but ongoing spousal support requested by Kathleen was withdrawn at trial | Partial reversal: interim support and contempt findings through July 31, 2016 affirmed; award of $1,000/mo spousal support for five years reversed and remanded; court abused discretion by not reconsidering interim support after trial |
| 3. Contempt findings for failure to comply with discovery and support orders | Contempt findings erroneous because Bruce lacked ability to comply (no funds for taxes/appraisals) | Bruce failed to prove inability; large purchases and $100,000 life-insurance proceeds show ability and willful noncompliance | Affirmed: contempt findings not clearly erroneous; Bruce failed to demonstrate inability to comply and willfully disobeyed orders |
| 4. Attorney-fee award to Kathleen | Award improper: no itemized fees submitted, court failed to consider reasonableness or specify amount, and did not account for fees already credited in property division | Fees justified by Bruce’s contempt and noncompliance | Reversed and remanded: court must receive itemized fee statement and apply two-step SDCL 15-17-38 analysis and make findings; adjust property division if fees overlap credit given |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Hill, 763 N.W.2d 818 (S.D. 2009) (standard for reviewing child support, alimony, and property division)
- Novak v. Novak, 713 N.W.2d 551 (S.D. 2006) (factors for equitable property division)
- Richarz v. Richarz, 904 N.W.2d 76 (S.D. 2017) (valuation issues resolved case-by-case; courts may rely on most appropriate evidence)
- Larson v. Larson, 733 N.W.2d 272 (S.D. 2007) (parties must produce competent evidence of value; trial courts not required to reject party testimony absent hard evidence)
- Giesen v. Giesen, 911 N.W.2d 750 (S.D. 2018) (court may consider lack of candor and cooperation in property division)
- Kolbach v. Kolbach, 877 N.W.2d 822 (S.D. 2016) (requirements for awarding alimony; need and ability must be shown)
- Dooley v. Dooley, 601 N.W.2d 277 (S.D. 1999) (trial court must have itemized attorney-fee evidence to determine reasonableness)