The
SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:
- Handling of military retirement pay for
reserve member of national guard reversed and remanded
PARKER
v. PARKER, 2023 S.D. 5: Divorce
Case. The sole issue on is the trial
court’s handling of military retirement pay.
This case is somewhat unique in that it deals with the prospective
retirement of H who is a “reserve” member of the National Guard. The trial court determined H’s “’monthly
pay base’ to be $1,500.94.” The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the
trial court committed “a legal error in the application of federal law to determine [H’s]
high-3 amount.” This ruling is unanimous
(5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter.
Although requested by both sides, the Court declines to award either
side appellate attorney fees.
A
PRACTICE POINTER for attorneys doing appellate work. The Court expresses displeasure at how the
parties created the record on appeal.
The 2nd paragraph of the opinion explains:
[¶2.] This case comes before us
with a rather sparse record. Missing are transcripts from the four-day divorce
trial, and nearly all of the information relating to the property division
issue presented here was not included in the record, but simply attached to the
appellate briefs. See Batchelder v. Batchelder, 2021 S.D. 60,¶ 5 n.2,
965 N.W.2d 880, 882 n.2 (holding that the practice of attaching material not
included in the record to briefs “does not comply with our rules for preparing
appendices”); Klutman v. Sioux Falls Storm, 2009 S.D. 55, ¶ 37, 769
N.W.2d 440, 454 (“Documents in the appendix must be included within, and should
be cross-referenced to, the settled record.”) (citing SDCL 15-26A-60(8)).
This
decision may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
