Thе plaintiff wife was granted a decree of divorce, and the only issue involved in this appeal is whether there was an equitable division оf the property. Plaintiff wife contends the award of property to her should be increased. The parties were first married in 1939, the husband grаnted a divorce in 1946, and they were remarried a month later. Three children were born to the marriage, two daughters and a son. The son wаs in the military service and both daughters are now over the age of majority. It would not aid in solving the question presented to detail the differences that led to this unfortunate, as they usually are, divorce action, though they were brought to a climax when they befriended and took a divorced daughter and her child into their home.
*322 From the findings, which are supported by the evidence, it appears the property invоlved was of a gross value of $99,000. It included two houses in Sioux Falls, farm lands, two cars, some personal property including household furnishings, cash and investments. The $99,000 total included farm lands inherited by defendant of a value of $40,000. As plaintiff had not completed high school she was not qualified fоr any work except household or waitress work which she had been doing as a part-time employee. Defendant’s wages of $515 a mоnth netted him about $400 plus a veteran’s disability monthly pension of $21. The evidence does indicate plaintiff was an economic homemaker who left all financial and business transactions to her husband who was an employee of the City of Sioux Falls but who also had been in the аutomobile and real estate business.
The trial court awarded the wife the $9,000 home, the $600 Rambler, $1,500 cash, $665 attorney’s fees and costs and an undivided one-fourth interest in all the farm lands, which interest was of a value of $15,000 (or at her option $15,000 cash) making a total of $26,765. * She was also аwarded as alimony $100 a month until her remarriage.
Plaintiff cites Peterson v. Peterson,
“We expressly hold that a trial judge * * * is not bound by any mathematical formula but shall make such award from the material factors before him having due regard for equity and the circumstances of the parties.”
The reasoning of the court was that
“facts in divorce сases are so varied and diverse that to attempt to apply any particular method for the awarding of property to а wife could result in an inequitable division.”
That there are many differences between the facts in and the disposition of this action and othеrs cited by both parties on this appeal is quite apparent when they are examined. One difference is in the judgment for in the three cases cited by plaintiff there was a division of property only and no added monthly support award, while here there was both a division of property and a $100 a month support award.
Under our statutes the court has discretionary authority to make both the allowance to the wife for her support and an equitable division of the property of the parties. See Kuehn v. Kuehn,
Other guidelines have been added by this court in its opinions. The Kressly opinion stated these to be:
“The duration of the mаrriage, the value of the property of each, their ages, their health and competency to earn, the contribution of each to the accumulation of the property and the faults and circum *324 stances leading up to the divorce. * * * Although the divorcе is granted for an offense of the husband yet the acts of both husband and wife leading up to the divorce must be considered by the court in the making of an award to the wife.”
This was quoted recently with approval in Miller v. Miller,
While the court may consider when and how the property was accumulated, it is not obligated to do so. Petersоn v. Peterson,
As to the award of one-fourth interest in the three farms or $15,000 сash, plaintiff contends the court should have given her specific property. We do not view the court’s award of one-fourth to hеr as an abuse of discretion. For aught that appears there may have been serious objection to splitting the farms or an attempt to divide them.
The judgment and decree should be corrected, however, to safeguard the marketability of the titles to the proрerties involved. At present the judgment awards one-fourth interest in the lands described to plaintiff “or at the option of the plaintiff $15,000.00 in cash”. No .method or time for the exercise of the option is set out and the status of *325 the title is left in some doubt. That should be clarified. For the reasons stated the judgment as to the division of property and allowance of support is affirmed and the action remanded to the trial court with directions to clarify and set out the time and manner of the exercise of the option. The allowance of such additiоnal attorney’s fees for the appeal held in abeyance by order of the trial court is left to it for disposition. No costs are to be taxed in this court.
Notes
Plaintiff’s brief totals this as $26,300. The $9,000 home was rented at $100 a month and her net share of the farm land rentals is over $50 a month which, with thе $100 support money, totals $250 plus any amount she might earn. The $73,000 left to the husband included the home valued at $20,000 and its furnishings. He continued to reside in it with then 17-yеar-old Peggy, a high school senior of whom he was given custody, and Barbara, the older daughter, and her child. The trial court may have assumed any further education of Peggy would be provided by the father.