*1 LAIRD, Plaintiff M. Deborah Appellant, III, LAIRD, Ray Defendant
W. Appellee.
No. 13588. Dakota.
Supreme of South Court May
Argued July
Decided 11, 1982. Aug.
Rehearing Denied
255 $35,000 Evans, R. Hoy Davenport, Carleton of the funds was in stocks. A short Smith, Falls, Hurwitz & for plaintiff Sioux later, time appellee’s mother died and left appellant; Sarah Richardson of Daven- $126,000 him By-Products of Dakota Evans, Smith, port, Falls, Hurwitz & Sioux granted a divorce on the on brief. ground of extreme cruelty. mental Breit, Falls, Donald H. for Sioux defend- was awarded $250 month in sup- child ant port. Appellee major received the portion DUNN, Justice. (appellant)
Deborah Laird
and W. Ray
Appellant contends that the trial
Laird,
(appellee)
granted
III
were
a court abused its discretion when it distrib
September
Appellant appeals
on
parties.
uted
of the
In re
portion
from that
of the decree regarding
viewing
property,
recog
the division of
the division of
sup
that the trial
has broad
nize
court
discretion
port award.* We reverse and remand.
making
in
such division and we will not
modify or
it clearly ap
set it aside unless
parties
The
were married on December
that the trial
abused its
pears
court
discre
17, 1977. One child
was born
this mar-
Palmer,
Palmer
tion.
N.W.2d 631
riage
January
on
parties
1980. Both
O’Connor,
(S.D.1982);
previous
have children from
marriages.
Michael,
Michael v.
child,
Appellant has one
while
making
In
an
three children
prior marriage.
from a
property,
the trial
married,
parties
When the
appellant
were
must consider
duration of the
employed
supervisor
marriage,
the value of the
of each
Telephone.
Northwestern Bell
Her
parties,
ages
parties,
salary
was approximately
earn,
competency
health and
and the
which later
increased to
of each
to the
employed as Vice-President in
charge of
lending
consumer
at
marital property.
Northwest
accumulation of
Falls,
Dakota,
Bank
earning
Sioux
South
Palmer, supra;
Palmer v.
O’Connor v.
per year. Shortly O’Connor,
Wallahan,
Wallahan
marriage,
after their
appellee terminated
“[T]he
employment
his
with the bank and began
any
is
mathematical
not bound
supervisor
of Dakota
but is to make
award on the
formula
By 1980,
a rendering plant.
salary
his
case,
of the material factors
basis
$55,300.
had increased to
having
equity and the cir
regard
due
for
Appellant had limited assets at the time
parties.”
O’Connor v.
cumstances
marriage. Appellee,
on the other O’Connor,
turned received divorce, an award at the time of the session $80,000from a trust established him exhibits relied at valued grandfather. Appellee applied $45,000 his and liabil the trial court value the assets of the trust funds cost acquir- toward the as follows: ities constructing home; a lot and new * During argument, circumstances, oral stipulat- was disclosed that the counsel Falls, has returned to Sioux regarding where ed to the dismissal of third issue Bank, employed by joint custody Citi under these of the minor child. Appellant’s Award: Award: ring engagement real estate residence & 2,000 jewelry 221,000 stocks 1,500 mink coat 21,500 value in life cash 4,000 cash cash 4,000 stock $453,200 TOTAL ASSETS *3 Accord 1980 Honda debts less life value in 600 cash $159,784 NET WORTH 450 flute assets, listed in the (Appellee’s total as $21,550 NET WORTH exhibits, parties’ $100. in error are inconsequen- We find this mistake to be in amount and tial irrelevant in deter- mining whether has been properly parties.) distributed to the of the Dakota attempt tion of valuation to this court will
Ordinarily, L, assets, the L & Inc. stock in Inc. stock and parties’ on the place a valuation worth, province appellee’s the of of net task is within its determination because that Hanks, 296 fact. Hanks v. remand- the trier of and the case must be reversed and v. Kittel (S.D.1980); Kittelson ed on this issue. (S.D.1978). son, The trial whether trial court We now address the however, must, place a value all property equitable the in an divided listed and make an dis Here, marriage lasted about manner. Kittelson v. property. that tribution of years. Both Guindon, Kittelson, Guindon v. health, a have but does trial, ap- At of hearing problem. the time that record indicates years age and twenty-eight was pellant produce with a motion to comply to failed thirty-eight years age. Ap- appellee was for Dakota corporate records income-pro- was all of the pellee records, corporate Without these Inc. ducing property. closely held of value of the evidence marriage with the trial court entered corporate stock considered We ac appellee’s personal opinion. considerable assets Hanks, supra, v. that in Hanks mar knowledged During the course of the produce to prepared should be gross earnings, as riage, appellee’s adjusted proper hard as to value evidence reported purposes, for tax personal opinions, own ty other than their $74,518 in 1980. He inherited 1979 and into the trial court without they when come $126,000from his mother and also received In addi stipulation as to those values. during from a trust past tion, present or appellee at trial denied Approximately of this N, He now R & Inc. stock. ownership of corporate stock. It form appeal, and his 1979 admits on court’s discretion whether within indicate, returns that did income tax part gifts to consider or inheritance has N, stock. This stock now own & Inc. Bal to be divided. Balvin v. L, L Inc. Because the trial merged with & vin, (S.D.1981); Buseman plac finding of fact court failed to enter (S.D.1980); And 299 N.W.2d appellee’s stock ing a value on each era v. investments, we are to determine unable Appellant entered L & Inc. whether the valuation of the net negative $2200. worth N, an estimated included the R & Inc. properly stock su worked full-time She Thus, find the trial court that Telephone Bell with Northwestern ques- pervisor fully to scrutinize failing erred year for the first one-half of income from his employment and and contributed income of stock dividends should enable him pay to per year family expense more than $250 month child support appellant resigned After from her account. without a hardship on him. job, performed the of a duties house- requested has wife and also as hostess dinners and required to pay attorney reasonable fees for also bore a child appeal. We find this to be a valid performed motherly duties. This request grant $1500 attor- recognized performance that the a ney appeal. fees on typical housewife and mother of domestic We that portion judgment reverse duties constitutes valuable contribution dealing with the the accumulation of marital award, support the child and remand for O’Connor, supra; Kittelson *4 proceedings further not inconsistent with Kittelson, supra. opinion. a full Upon disclosure of and their value, we are aware that it is still within WOLLMAN, appel- J.,
the trial court’s discretion whether C. and MORGAN and FOSHEIM, JJ., lee’s inheritance should be excluded in de- concur.
termining the Balvin HENDERSON, J., concurs specially. Balvin, supra; Buseman su- However, pra; supra. Andera v. HENDERSON, (specially Justice concur- only this discretion can be exercised after a ring). full disclosure and consideration of all the Although I agree with this assets. Even as to the cur- decision for values listed, principal rently we reason that some of the conclude that award of mar- riage-accumulated (consisting personal mostly of items assets were not on the division, already appellant’s possession) point table I wish to out to be inad- that I equate and an abuse of discretion. Even do believe the should share in though of only constituting years’ assets that appel- duration, appellant’s brought lee into the This Court would indicate more liberal considers the contributions made party during settlement. each to the ac- quisition or accumulation the marital es- Finally, appellant contends that the trial tate. As I review our recent cases on divi- awarding abused its discretion in cases, sion of appears support. $250 month in child grant- “In have not deviated from this rule. support, the trial court must con- Vaughn v. Vaughn, See reasonable, sider the rather than extrava- Hanson, Hanson v. gant, expenditures such suitable to the children’s circumstances and situation life and the father’s financial means and Waliaban,
ability pay.” Wallahan v. at 27.
The evidence in this case indicates that
this child has been accustomed to a rather
high living. standard of should enti- He
tled to maintain that standard and to ex-
pect a education. Under the present
decree, the living quar- child would be in a
ter of a million dollar house for six months and relegated
out of to a small for the
apartment remainder