Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court dismissed these two appeals involving unrelated juvenile adjudications and dispositions, holding that this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction over S.A.'s and E.B.'s respective appeals.At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court had appellate jurisdiction where the juveniles - S.A. and E.B. - failed properly to serve the notices of appeal on their parents. The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, holding (1) S.A. and E.B. were required to timely serve their parents because parents are parties in juvenile delinquency proceedings; and (2) because both juveniles failed timely to show service of their notices of appeal on all parties, this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction. View "In re S.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the circuit court that it did not have statutory authority to terminate Father's parental rights against his wishes in the absence of an adoption, holding that S.D. Codified Laws 25-5A cannot be used to involuntarily terminate a parent's rights without a corresponding adoption.Mother filed a petition under chapter 25-5A seeking the involuntary termination of Father's parental rights, arguing that the termination was in the best interests of the parties' children and that Father's consent to the termination could not be waived. The circuit court denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that chapter 25-5A cannot be used to involuntarily terminate a parent's parental rights. View "In re Interest of I.A.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting Mother primary physical custody of the parties' two children in this case, holding that the circuit court's child custody determination was within the range of permissible choices and was supported by competent evidence.Mother and Father were never married and shared two children together. Father eventually petitioned for "Interim and Primary Custody, Child Support, and Paternity" determinations. Following a trial, the circuit court concluded that it would be in the children's best interests to grant Mother primary custody with Father having parenting time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in declaring the S.D. Codified Laws 25-4-45.5 presumption to have been rebutted; and (2) did not give too much weight to its primary caretaker determination. View "Harwood v. Chamley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court in this divorce action, holding that there was error in the division of the parties' marital property and in the spousal support award.After seventeen years of marriage Husband commenced a divorce against Wife. Wife filed a counterclaim seeking separate maintenance and requesting that the divorce be postponed until she began eligible to receive lifetime TRICARE health care coverage. The trial court granted made an equitable division of marital property, granted Wife a decree of separate maintenance, and awarded her permanent alimony. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying the entry of a divorce decree until after twenty years of marriage and by granting a decree of separate maintenance; (2) the circuit court lacked the authority to enter an equitable division of the marital property in the separate maintenance proceeding; and (3) on remand, the circuit court should consider the question of spousal support in light of the property division. View "Lefors v. Lefors" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated a portion of the judgment and decree of divorce entered by the circuit court in this case, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in determining Daniel Parker's military "monthly pay base" to be $1,500.94.Daniel filed for divorce from Camille Parker, citing irreconcilable differences. In dispute during the underlying proceedings was the correct amount of Daniel's "monthly basic pay" for the purpose of determining the equitable division of his retirement benefits. The Supreme Court vacated the portion of the court's decree dividing Daniel's military retirement but otherwise affirmed, holding that the record revealed a legal error in the application of federal law to determine Daniel's monthly pay base. View "Parker v. Parker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court finding that a surviving wife (Wife) did not voluntarily enter into a premarital agreement that waived any right she had to the property of her deceased husband (Husband) and that the agreement was unconscionable, holding that the circuit court erred in invalidating the agreement under the provisions of S.D. Codified Laws 29A-2-213(b) and S.D. Codified Laws 25-2-21(a)(2).After Husband died, Wife petitioned the circuit court for, inter alia, her elective share and homestead allowance. At issue was the validity of the premarital agreement signed by Wife. The circuit court found that Wife did not voluntarily sign the agreement and that the agreement was unconscionable. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not clearly err in finding that Wife did not voluntarily sign the agreement and that the agreement was void and unenforceable on this basis; but (2) erred in finding that the agreement was unconscionable. View "In re Estate of Eichstadt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court granting Alice and Vernon Cook a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, holding that the circuit court's property award and alimony award were an abuse of discretion.The court below equitably divided the parties' marital property and ordered Vernon to pay Alice a cash payment that included $140,000 for marital assets that the court found Vernon had dissipated. The court further ordered Vernon to pay Alice permanent alimony in the monthly amount of $1,500. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court abused its discretion in classifying Vernon's monthly military retirement pay as marital property; (2) the circuit court erred in failing properly to apply federal law to the military disability pay Vernon received during the separation; and (3) because the circuit court's property division is reversed, vacatur of the alimony award and remand were required. View "Cook v. Cook" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court granting a divorce to Husband and Wife on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, holding that the circuit court erred in part.On appeal, Husband raised challenges regarding issues involving child custody and support, the valuation and division of marital assets, and attorney fees. Wife appealed the circuit court's rulings regarding the grounds for divorce, property division and valuation, and attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court's findings were insufficient to support its conclusion that certain buy-out funds should be excluded from the marital estate and in setting the property aside as non-marital; and (2) the trial court erred by sua sponte ordering the production of the parties' tax returns post-divorce without seeking in put from the parties on the relevant considerations for a protective order. View "Dunham v. Sabers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court in this action brought by Plaintiff to determine custody, child support, and shared parenting of the parties' child and on Defendant's counterclaim for breach of an implied contract and unjust enrichment, holding that the circuit court erred in part.In his counterclaim, Defendant argued that the parties had impliedly agreed that they would jointly own the marital home and that he would receive equity in the home acquired through his financial contributions toward the home mortgage. In response, Plaintiff claimed that she owned the home and that Defendant simply paid her rent while living there. The circuit court denied Defendant's claims, concluded that the parties' relationship was that of a landlord and tenant and awarded back rent, and determined shared child support and parenting issues. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) erred when it awarded Plaintiff back rent; (2) erred in determining the amount of back child support due; and (3) did not otherwise err or abuse its discretion. View "Murphey v. Pearson" on Justia Law

In this divorce action, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part orders entered by two different circuit court judges related to James Farmer's distributional interest in Lakota Lake Camp, LLC and orders related to the release of funds to James's wife, Lori Lieberman, that were previously held by the clerk of court following the execution sale of property owned by Lakota Lake, holding that the court erred in part.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the collection court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine Lori's application for a charging order; (2) the divorce court erred in ordering the release of excess sale proceeds to Lori; and (3) the collection court's order denying Lakota Lake's motion to release to the company the excess sale proceeds from the sale of Granite Perch, the last remaining property owned by Lakota Lake, to Lori must be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings on the issue. View "Farmer v. Farmer" on Justia Law