*1 834 appeal jurisdiction- is meetings file the notice of board passed at or resolutions validity[.]” appeal’s 459 ally to an pas- fatal of such at the time effective
become 432. provided N.W.2d at еxpressly sage unless otherwise held that the previously therein.” haveWe her case, Hardy to file In this failed appeal under SDCL ninety-day period for days from ninety appeal notice of within of the school begins the date 13-46-1 from by the decision was rendered the time the ag- decision, the date the not from board’s timely file the notice This failure to Board. that deci- notice of grieved party recеived Hardy’s jurisdictionally fatal appeal of 17, Dist. No. Ind. sion. Hall v. Salem Sch. For the rea- appeal from Board’s decision. 202, 206, 217 County, 88 S.D. McCook herein, hold the trial sons stated (1974) (wherein held 160, subject jurisdiction matter possessed never the school appeal principal’s a dis- Hardy’s and should have suit over con- not to renew his board’s determination appeal. missed dismissed where have been tract shоuld Accordingly, appeal is dismissed ninety-first appeal was served notice of hereby judgment of the trial court Ind. Hensley v. Yankton See also day). vacated. 1, 670, Dist. No. Sch. 88 S.D. (1975); Murray v. Falls Board Sioux MILLER, C.J., Education, 554, 88 S.D. of SABERS, JJ., concur. WUEST (1975). appeal filed and served of The notice 26, inaccurately reflects March
Hardy decision,
1986, of Board’s as the date of received notice actually
it is the date she holding to our Pursuant
Board’s decision. 24, Hall, March have reflected it should 1986, decision. date of Board’s the actual CLARKE, Appellee, Plaintiff ninety days from Accordingly, Hardy had and serve her notice March 24 to file CLARKE, Defendant R. Hardy day upon which appeal. Thе last Appellant. 23, 1986.* file and serve was June attorney on District’s While she served No. 17261. 23, 1986, not file the notice she did
June Supreme Dakota. Court South 24, 1986; day late due appeal until June effec designation of the to the inaccurate Argued Sept. date of Board’s decision.
tive Dec. Decided Dakota It is settled law South Rehearing Denied Feb. appeal timely file a notice of that failure to jurisdictional is a prescribed by statute requiring dismissal of flaw Storage, v. Munce Bros.
Stark Transfer (Henderson, J., (S.D.1990) Land v. Lex
dissenting); Western States Ins.,
ington N.W.2d 429 Safety, Public Department
Kulesa v. v. Pre Madsen N.W.2d 637 Contractors, 89 S.D. Painting
ferred (1975). In Western States
Land, “[Pjailure timely serve we stated:
* 22, 1986, day. day then had one June The actual ninetieth and, 15-6-6(a), she Sunday pursuant to SDCL *2 Banks, Johnson, Banks of &
Ronald W. Colbath, City, plaintiff appel- Rapid lee. Costello, Porter, Stanton of
Thomas W.
Bushnell, Rapid City,
Heisterkamp Hill
appellant.
for defendant
Judge.
appeals from
(Lynda)
Lynda R. Clarke
property, grant
division of
the trial cоurt’s
attorney fees in a decree of
alimony, and
affirm
1990. We
entered June
part
and remand.
part,
reverse
(Neil)
mar-
Lynda and Neil Clarke
No children
ried on November
marriage.
party,
Each
were born
previ-
from a
adult children
marriage
marriage. At the time
ous
approximately
had a net worth
working
secre-
$1,300,000. Lynda
brought approximately
tary and
into the
years of
exten- At the time of
Neil was 51
and travеled
lived well
two
employment
age
good
and in
health. The trial court
sively. Lynda terminated
significant trust in-
and host-
found that he receives
homemaker
to become a full-time
Trust.
ranching operation and
сome from the Cornelius Clarke
ess. Neil owned
average
old and
pilot
a director of the
was a charter
high school education
health. She has a
Plant.
South Dakota Cement
*3
skills which are out-
аnd some secretarial
at
marriage appears to have declined
The
computer
Lynda’s
dated due to
lack of
ex-
pic-
financial
parties’
the
as the
same rate
from arthri-
perience. Lynda also suffers
January
separated on
parties
ture. The
tis;
at
it was not clear how
parties’ net worth
by
time the
ability
to work.
this would affect
one million dol-
by
had declined more than
only
grantеd
This is an unusual case in that not
Neil was
lars.
In December
most of the marital
inherited
upon a default
a decree of divorce based
family,
Neil’s
but there has been no contri-
appear
did not
aftеr
Lynda
to
marital estate from either
com- bution
the
being
a summons and
served with
fact,
the marital estate has de-
subsequently denied
plaint. The trial court
percent.
creased more than 75
judgment pursuant
tо
Lynda relief from
15-6-60(b). This court reversed and
SDCL
Lynda
The
a 1986
the
remanded for a trial on
merits.1 On
$10,000 proceeds
Century,
Buick
from the
Neil a
remand the trial court denied
belonged
sale of coins which
to the custodi-
intemperance
ground
on the
of habitual
in
al trust and Neil’s interest
the
granted Lynda
ground
a divorce on the
Broadcasting Company
Lynda’s
adultery.
amounted
net share of the
$129,500.
$17,-
net
was
Neil’s
share
appeal are
The issues
However,
the trial court excluded
its discre-
whether the trial
abused
the
and their income. We will
three trusts
awarding Lynda broadcasting con-
tion in
court,
guess the trial
$111,000,$10,- not second
based
tract with a contested value
upon
the record before us and the well-
opinion,
memorandum
we hold
reasoned
attorney fees.
$129,500 Lynda
that an award of
was
It is well settled law this state
not an
of discretion.
court has broad discretion
that the trial
The face
of the Neihemia contract
value
property, and
making a division of marital
$175,000.
$175,000represents the
The
will not
disturbed absent a
such division
be
buyers
amount which thе
of the broadcast-
Moser,
v.
clear abuse of discretion. Moser
obligated
ing station
Neil. Neil also is
owe
365 N.W.2d ring). Lien v. Krage, 329 N.W.2d Lien, (S.D.1979). it, 278 N.W.2d ap- basically, I Viewed as understand pellee prevailed in that: has to the factors the trial addition its discre Trial court did not abuse awarding property set court considers property. Goeh tlement, making tion the division of a determination as 192, 194 1) Goehry, 354 N.W.2d ry trial court should consider living; standard of their worthless, argues positions it is worth its face before while Neil 3. The switched their argues this court. now the contract value. Dobberpuhl Judge this one issue. As not in its into Trial did err $10,000.00. written, pro- evidence should be alimony award hard 878, 879 may dollar Krage Krage, so that a true evaluation duced then, established; court will $5,000.00 unto of an of that Trial know the exact value award court’s attorneys’ fees and per its mission the man- contract fulfill discretion. not an abuse of I costs was of this would add that the date Court. (S.D. Lien, Lien v. advocatively the val- skimpy briefs urged, It is at least uation Justice, this that the above points, all three with On spare litigation us of third same, I concur. to substantiate authorities remanding on one reversing are We it, is, I understand
point, testimony be taken to evaluate for deed award-
true worth of the contract Basically, are down Lynda Clarke.
ed court, my opinion, Trial
to arithmetic. thoughts ethic rivet and work
should its