*1 been for First National’s series of mistak- that the title provided commitment notice representations. en equity some or interest First Nation- al, but the record shows no clear neglect Finally, consider on part of Norwest to determine whether Norwest’s reliance was reason and, whether there mortgage so, was a if able. First National refers us to the fol what its outstanding balance was. To the lowing passage Madson: contrary, repeated Norwest’s inquiries whether, question The is under the find- manifest diligence good faith. ings, defendant ... had notice of cir- cumstances sufficient put prudent We affirm the trial court’s con- person upon inquiry. If facts are suffi- clusion that First National was not entitled put cient to purchaser of a title or lien to mortgage restoration of its priority. upon inquiry any right adverse or

equity of a party, third want GILBERTSON, [then] Justice, Chief diligence in making such inquiry AMUNDSON, is Justices, SABERS and equivalent to a good GORS, want of faith. Acting Supreme Justice, concur. 260 N.W. at 833. points First National out

(1) that the Kuechenmeisters had told personnel

Norwest on more than one occa- they

sion that might have a mortgage with (2) National,

First that the title com-

mitment showed the existence of such a

mortgage. First National then argues that Norwest was on notice that the mort- 2002 SD 6 gage did exist and under obligation WOEHL, Donald Duane Plaintiff resolve the conflict between the title com- Appellant, mitment and the oral representations. First urges National us to part find on the of Norwest a want of diligence tantamount Jacqueline WOEHL, Sue Frost good to a want of faith. We conclude that Appellee. Defendant and the trial court was correct in emphasizing repeated inquiries Norwest’s of First Na- No. 21869. tional. diligence Norwest’s is evident also Supreme Court of South Dakota.

in Hogan’s call to Register of Deeds to learn whether there had been a recent Considered on Briefs Oct. 2001. recording mortgage. of such a Decided Jan. Madson, explained [¶ 17.] As “[i]t not enough that an intending purchaser

entertain a suspicion mere of an unknown

equity or interest. There must be some neglect

dear to inquire having after some notice of some equity or interest definite added).

in another.” (emphasis Id.

Kuechenmeisters surmised that they might mortgage

have a with First National. National,

Norwest then went to First

purported mortgage holder. It is true *2 13, 2000 filed On Donald October support. modification of child petition

a for had alleged that circumstances sub- He he stantially changed because was “fired separation position.” from current indicated that he employer from his report for in- discharged released and had been quality. and work subordination Following hearing a the child [¶4.] report. filed a detailed It support referee separated had been reported that Donald Chrys- position as a mechanic at from dealer now worked his brother’s ler and earning per hour. construction business $8 “acknowledges previ- that Donald he income, although he ously higher earning voluntarily has not reduced states he The report his income.” noted: of Don- Upon Jackie’s cross examination ald, primary it was learned was that reason for Donald’s termination named apparently girl he struck friend Chantelle, at his who was co-worker Tonner, King, & King H.I. Tobin of employment. place Aberdeen, plaintiff appellant. for and that: The referee concluded [¶ 5.] Woehl, Aberdeen, Jacqueline Sue Frost position as mechanic Donald Woehl’s pro se. month, $2,773 and has been paid per $1,387 GORS, work- Acting per month Justice. reduced now carpenter. as ing for his brother appeals Donald Duane Woehl act, Don’s was a outburst support adopting order an negative effects of that act should finding report, referee’s upon his children. His not be visited law, fact, and recommenda- conclusions $2,773, at therefore calculated support upon tions which base his E withhold- in Circular by reduced $314 joba was fired from. We income from he Medicare, Security and ing, Social $212 affirm. percent, at five retirement $139 $2,108 im- monthly net income of FACTS to him puted Jacqueline Donald and divorced sup- that child The referee recommended years February after ten on to the sum of effec- be modified port $774 children. Donald was marriage four 1, 2000. tive November pay per month in child ordered to $775 upon This amount was based ISSUE per working per 42.5 hours week $16 adopt- trial court err Jacqueline being imputed at the 6.] Did the hour and ing recom- wage the referee’s child minimum level. which calculated setting support payments. mendation Donald’s We be job on his income from a income based lieve this scenario is similar the situa fired from? Boquette[ Boquette, tions in 215 Iowa 255], Nicolls, 247 N.W. Nicolls[ DISCUSSION 211 Iowa re 288] [In N.W. *3 job a Donald was fired from a as Marriage Drury[, 475 N.W.2d 668]. of] paid per pro- mechanic that hour and $16 responsible While Kenneth was for the in monthly vided income. He found $2773 job, loss of his we believe he did not employment his brother’s construction deprive of intend to the children support per firm for hour in providing $8 $1387 disregard or had a for reckless their monthly adopted income. The trial court Rather, well-being. he acted impru the referee’s recommendation to calculate dently and lost his employment but was support obligation Donald’s child based job. diligent obtaining in a new Conse former, current, upon his rather than in- quently, we conclude the trial court come. adjust erred in its to determination the payments upwards child support using Deviation from the child support salary. his former schedule upon is allowable based “[t]he voluntary act of parent either which re- Lee, Foley, 501 N.W.2d at 500. See Lee v. duces parent’s that income.” SDCL 25-7- 459 (Minn.App.1990)(no N.W.2d 365 au 6.10(8). Donald that contends his firing thority permits which willful equating mis involuntary. was Consequently, he be- conduct voluntary with termination where lieves that his support child should have there is no evidence that the misconduct upon been his salary. based current attempt was an to induce termination and a thereby obligation). avoid child support

[¶ 9.] This Court has not addressed the issue of whether fired from being joba Supreme [¶ 11.] The of Virginia Court a voluntary allowing constitutes act devia- took a approach different Edwards v. tion from the child support schedule. Oth- (1986). Va. Lowry, 232 348 259 S.E.2d issue, however, er faced with courts the There, Lowry sought John to reduce his have taken two differing approaches. child support job because he lost his as a larceny result of his admitted Supreme

[¶ 10.] The Iowa Court his con- employer, sidered the issue in a hardware dealer. The Marriage In Re Court of (Iowa 1993). party noted that a Foley, seeking N.W.2d reduction in 501 497 Kenneth, There, father, support payments child the had must show that been his fired ability pay lack of to is not due to his insubordination. The lower court own con- voluntary act or of neglect. cluded because his that termination was a self- The Court Lowry inflicted reduction in said pay attempting used his to shift to his “child consequences former income to set of Edwards, his own Supreme party wrongdoing.” noted that may not 348 S.E.2d at 261. inability claim an to pay support when inability is self-inflicted or vol- In us, undisputed case before it is untary. case, however, In Kenneth’s Lowry’s that John of diminution

While Kenneth’s termination for insub- was the direct consequence his volun- may commendable, ordination not tary, wrongful be it act. receiving After qualify does not as a warning employer self-inflicted or direct from his follow- ing theft, reduction of income that previous fired for justify using would former salary again. stealing He failed meet the

191 concerned, support Where child burden, by the rule Ham- required primary is the consider child’s interest Hammers, 30, 216 Va. 216 mers[ Ariz., State 414 Regynski ation. showing free of himself S.E.2d 201 (S.D.1987). 612 N.W.2d in circum- change responsibility for to a stances, not entitled reduc- Kost, and was at 214. the diminu- upon tion in based Kost, pur- In mother with the by the loss of tion of income caused full time attending school est motives— omitted). (footnote

job. capabili- improve producing her income of the child— ties for the ultimate benefit See, Marriage Imlay, In re Id. to reduce her was not allowed deviation 621 N.E.2d Ill.App.3d 190 Ill.Dec. (4 obligation. We held: Dist.1993) (holding that father’s *4 being due fired was paramount reduction to does this obli- How then improve and was not to square to deliberate conduct with the desire gation due his occurrence.) par- merely employment status? Should a fortuitous one’s to himself his ent be able alleviate not addressed This has Court attending while support obligation child here. We precise presented issue the sta- improve employment to his school have, however, parent’s stressed that the nega- must this in tus? We answer the duty support his or her children is to consistently Court has held tive. This Kost obligation parent, of that paramount any parent the of obligation first (S.D.1994). Kost, N.W.2d 209 v. 515 assuming he is provide support, to child long and This has a consistent mentally capable. To physically parents support the to history requiring open would be to the hold otherwise are “wards of their children. Children floodgates parents allow who have Houghton, 37 Houghton v. Court.” circumvent obligations child to support N.W, (1916). 184, 188, 157 317 S.D. of guise re- obligations these under Dakota are entrust courts South turning employ- to enhance to school the children guardians ed of to be possibilities. ment protect their welfare. Jameson to Kost, dicta at 215. In 515 N.W.2d (S.D.1981); Jameson, 240 306 N.W.2d “the trial court could have noted that also (S.D. Blare, 787 Blare v. 302 N.W.2d by of Karen’s deviating virtue considered 1981); are Houghton, supra. Parents her income.” voluntary which reduced act for their provide support to obligated at 215. Id. 515 N.W.2d obligation only is not children. This was fired In this case Donald 14.] [¶ also public policy, of but is statu- matter He quality. and work insubordination 25-5-18.1; 25-7- tory. SDCL SDCL primary reason that the testified par- This Court has stated 6.1. girlfriend he hit his who was fired was that duty par- his children is ent’s his action He admits that also coworker. the parent amount other debts claims, He hitting voluntary act. Park, 309 secondary. are Park v. to result it was not intended though, that (S.D.1981); 827 Donohue v. Get N.W.2d income. in a reduction man, (S.D.1988); 281 Van 432 N.W.2d Woude, 501 that Don- reject Vander the notion der Woude v. We (S.D.1993). resulting This in conduct and ter- underlying 361 also N.W.2d ald’s consid- employment cannot be resulting from remar mination of obligations cludes provoke Donohue, because he did not supra; riage. Brunick ered (S.D.1987). express purpose Brunick, for the termination avoiding support. Marriage See ry in determining In this Foley, case, pri- 501 N.W.2d 500. Donald’s there is no evidence that Donald’s act mary, paramount obligation is the of striking girlfriend represented an Kost, of his four children. attempt 515 N.W.2d at to induce his termination and doing Instead of everything in avoid his child support responsibility. Ac- power to maintain his employment, cordingly, Don- his child support obligation deliberate, ald’s violent should acts led to his fir- be based on his current salary. ing. firing His was neither fortuitous nor

beyond his control. Now he seeks hoist significant economic ramifications of

that on his four children. This cannot be

condoned. His actions were voluntary.

There was no abuse of discretion deviat- 2002 SD 8 ing from the child support schedule by ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE using his former INSUR income to calculate his COMPANY, ANCE current Minnesota support obligation. Cor poration, Appellant, Plaintiff and Affirmed. *5 GILBERTSON, Justice, Chief Gary ENGELMANN, Defendant, KONENKAMP, and AMUNDSON and Justices, concur. Baloun, Natasha Bertsch, Natalie Brian Bertsch, Nancy Froning, Greg Fron SABERS, Justice, dissents. ing, Martinmaas, Audra K. Defen

SABERS, Justice (dissenting). Appellees. dants and I respectfully dissent. Unless No. 21357. done with the idea of intentionally reduc- ing one’s obligation, a Supreme Court of South Dakota. support obligor’s termination from employ- 21, Argued Sept. 2000. ment greater and loss of income should not 12, Reassigned March 2001. be viewed as a voluntary act intended to deprive Rather, one’s children Reassigned 9, Oct. 2001. obligation should be based Decided Jan. 2002. on an salary. individual’s current Rehearing Denied Feb. I submit that this Court should follow the reasoning set forth in Foley, 501 Lee, 459 N.W.2d 365.

These cases state that “while obligor] [the

was responsible job, for the loss of his

believe he did not intend to deprive the

children of support or had a reckless disre-

gard for their well-being.” Foley, 501

N.W.2d at 500. When there is no evidence the obligor’s misconduct represents

an attempt to induce termination and avoid

a support obligation, a court should not be

permitted to obligor’s use the former sala-