*1 “power to declare circuit court has status, legal and other relations”
rights, 21-24-1. De- parties.
between particularly useful
claratory judgment rights associated with “a
determining legal contract,
deed, will, or other writ- written
ing constituting a contract....” SDCL “plain, speedy and
24-3. in the form of
adequate remedy,” declara- to Frentz. There-
tory relief was available
fore, manda- he was not entitled to writs of Agar, prohibition.
mus and (denying prohibition at be- adequate remedy through available
cause “payment statute); Matheson, Corbly v.
test” (S.D.1983) (prohibition 348-49 petitioner
denied because could have re- court);
moved small claims action to Sandy, 50 S.D. 209 N.W.
Gilmore (1926) (denying prohibition be- injunctive relief
cause was available
adequate). Judgment is affirmed. MILLER, Justice, and Chief AMUNDSON, Justices,
WILBUR, Judge, Circuit concur. Wilbur, Judge for Circuit
Konenkamp, disqualified. Kay CUTLER-CHRISTIANS, Appellee,
Plaintiff CHRISTIANS,
Michael Arlo Defendant Appellant.
No. 21637.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Argued March
levied Chevrolet Suburban proceed- awarded to Michael the divorce ings. May 2000 Michael filed a On Appeal docketing statement certain terms of the In appealing divorce. addition, Michael secured and filed a $45,000 supersedeas bond tо the exe- judgment per cution of Connie’s SDCL 15- 26A-25. Hinderaker, Austin, R. Strait of David Bratland, Watertown, &
Hopper, Strait May filed a [¶ 4.] On Connie SD, Attorneys appellee. for Motion for Offset to counterbalance Mi- Connie, Ribstein, judgment against chael’s and a McCarty Don M. of Rick A. McCann, Hogan, Brookings, Judgment Contempt Ribstein & of becаuse of Mi- SD, appellant. Attorney for defendant pay alimony. chael’s failure to On June
2000 Michael countered with a Motion for AMUNDSON, Justice Stay Judgment Approval Super- Contempt. sedeas Bond and Motion for A (Con- Christians 1.] Connie Cutler hearing was held on June nie) a divorce from her hus- granted was (Michael) on Michael Arlo Christians band hearing, At the [¶ 5.] conclusion of February appeals 2000. Michael the trial court Michael’s bond jurisdiction to rule on certain trial court’s Connie, therefore, objection from without after Notice of was filed on matters contends that the trial court Michael reverse. judgment of divorce. We сontempt to find him in pay alimony he had for failure because FACTS filed a notice of and filed re- provisions Under the court denied the re- quired bond. The divorce, pay was to Mi- ment of Connie quest alimony payments pend- $38,205.34 she because the chael addition, court held ing appeal. her had received in the divorce exceeded for his failure to Michael A equitable share. attorneys’ fees alimony and assessed $35,000 ordered in favor of amount of him аgainst associated with against following: Michael for the Connie court did not allow hearing. Although the fees; $20,000 attorneys’ on her $8000 $35,000 against Connie’s set-off Infliction of Emotion- claim for Intentional $38,205.34 she owed Distress; $7,000 punitive for her al motion, had Michael’s upon its own $35,000 judg- damages claim.1 Connie’s Mi- judgment removed from the docket. filed with the against ment Michael was following issue: appeals raising chael 29, 2000. Due to clerk of courts on March docket, error in the Michael’s an Appeal and filing a Notice of Whether $38,205.34 judgment against Connie stays the enforcement of not entered until March the trial court and leaves post-di- without tо decide execut- On Michael and vorce motions. judgment against ed on her alimony to Connie. was the award of chael 1. Also included in the they said what mеant. When the lan- DECISION clear, guage of a statute is certain and the award sought Michael to have unambiguous, there is no occasion for stayed until the mat- to Connie construction, only and the court’s func- appeal. on Michael ar- ter was resolved *3 meaning tion is to declare the that filed on gues thе in clearly expressed statute as the stat- coupled super- 2000 with a ute. the circuit court with- sedeas bond leaves jurisdiction anything out to consider othеr ¶ 105, 6, Schaefers, Zoss v. 1999 SD 598 Ryken Ryk- than “trivial matters.” See (quoting 552 Dakota South en, Thus, 440 N.W.2d ¶ CRE, 2, 17, SIF v. 1999 SD 589 N.W.2d trial court chael contends that the 209). statutory authority confer-
jurisdiction to hear the matters it had appellate jurisdiction ring is clear. If a decided on June 2000. party properly timely files a Notice of by appel- Review and the bond secured the A7.] final or order
[¶ court, approved by lant is subject stayed pending appeal to is late is conferred. See SDCL to the Court if done in accord 15-26A-25; SDCL 15-26A-32. part, ch with SDCL 15-26A. provides, “An from a In this two facts are shall enforce not 1) undisputed: Ap Michael’s Notice of proceeding ment of circuit ... unless the 2) entered, peal properly the appellant supersedeas executes a bond supersedeas amount of the bond was apрroved by the amount and form the approved by the circuit properly court. Also, circuit court SDCL 15-26A-32 [.] ” These facts dictate our today.2 decision “[wjhen suрersedeas adds: an approved Because Michael followed prescribed the pro bond is filed it shall all further steps conferring an apрeal to the is ceedings upon judg in circuit court the central post-divorce hearing sues to the Thus, accordingly!.]” ment or order we 14, 2000, on June the circuit сourt lacked are called to determine whether Mi jurisdiction. Therefore, as the order for chael has the complied statutory alimony was within the same as by legislature. scheme the set therefrom, appealed the other orders the “Statutory interpretation order should have been presеnts question of law stayed by reviewable de pending ap the circuit court novo.” Satellite Cable Sws. v. Northern peal. While the court does have ¶ Eleсtric, 1998 SD 581 N.W.2d authority, under SDCL to 480. provide alimony, interim this was not done. primary statutory Ryken, supra (holding
One rules of at 308 Cf ... although construction that give is to words and court was with рhrases plain their out meaning and effect. to hear the mo tion, court This assumes that statutes authority mean court had the to order they say legislators whаt and that alimony). have husband to interim As the State, though through legal (S.D. repre Even Honomichl v. sentation, argued 1983). Therefore, the merits of motions in persuaded this Court is not front of the circuit one cannot confer argument Connie's that Michael waived subject jurisdiction by agreement, matter con jurisdiction, by argument Conniе’s that Mi sent, or See Guardianship waiver. Matter of jurisdiction. chael waived Sasse, (S.D. 1985); 363 N.W.2d Likewise, approve a decision not stayed, order power in а cir- supersedeas bond retains to be absolved. Michael is court to enforce its order. SDCL cuit supra. 26A-25, Here, did and remand for reverse 10.] We [¶ of ali- approve opinion. not inconsistent with ceedings mony: approving The court will enter it’s order MILLER, Chief [¶ bond. The will GILBERTSON, KONENKAMP staying enter it’s order also Justices, concur. ment, plural, judgments 12.]SABERS, Justice, dissents. *4 has the defendant $7,000, $8,000, $20,000, sums (dissenting). Justice $35,000. which I total The believe majority opin- agree I alimony or the will not have been advisable that it would ion exchange requirement parties ali- temporary court to award the circuit in accordance with the court’s it to enforce its would allоw mony which equitable property. division after an pending order while added). circuit court did (Emphasis Ryken, v. Ryken approved bond. relinquish power to enforce its or- its That is one such, alimony. the or- concerning der As Ryken. Neverthe- Ryken option proper der of and the less, here, the circuit court retained affirmed. court should be by con- its power to enforce Therefore, I dissent. tempt. at- Ryken, to enforce tempted contempt power aр- while the
through its I concurred with the pending.
peal was held the circuit FREEMAN HOSPITAL majority which COMMUNITY HOME, AND NURSING make jurisdiction to court was without Appellant, In that contempt. such an order approved supеrse- court had it and therefore was without deas bond COUNTY; Hoff, Jerome HUTCHINSON order. That de- jurisdiction to enforce its Auditor; Zeeb, Director Donna 15-26A-25 dictated SDCL cisiоn was Schleske, Equalization; Com- Scott provides: which Stern, missioner; Commission- Gillas a An from Commissioner, er, Leonard, A. Russell proceedings enforcement shall not al., Appellees. et court ... unless the in the circuit No. lant executes Dakota. Court of South by the cir- form amount and 30, 2001. Argued May cuit court. added). 15-26A-25 and (Emphasis 11, 2001. necessary Rehearing Sept. create a con- Denied superse- approval of the precedent,
dition approval, With such
deas bond. stayed. power
court’s enforcement