Effort to Delay Divorce Decree Problematic

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:

 

1. Effort to Delay Entry of Divorce Decree is problematic

 

LeFORS v. LeFORS, 2023 S.D. 24:  In this divorce action, Husband is on active duty with the U.S. Air Force.  Wife requested Separate Maintenance while also requesting that a decree of divorce be delayed two years until the parties had been married for 20 years so that she could secure benefits available to a military spouse.  The trial court granted Wife Separate Maintenance, awarding her permanent alimony and also made an equitable division of marital property.  On appeal, the SD Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in (larger) part, holding:

 

The trial court is not permitted to Divide Property in conjunction with an action for Separate Maintenance, recognizing that the cause of action for Separate Maintenance is separate and distinct from the cause of action for Legal Separation (for which the trial court would be permitted to divide property), stating:

 

[¶26.]  In contrast, the remedy of separate maintenance, provided for in SDCL 25-4-39 and SDCL 25-4-40, is distinct from a legal separation, and there is no authority allowing a circuit court to equitably divide a marital estate when granting separate maintenance.

 

Since the Division of Property award is reversed, the trial court’s decision on permanent alimony is also reversed and remanded.  The determination of alimony must be considered “in light of the property division.”

 

Wife’s request for appellate attorney fees is denied because it was filed after Oral Argument, not “served and filed prior to submission of the action on its merits,” as required by SDCL 15-26A-87.3(2).

 

The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. 

 

 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Estate dispute with Son of Deceased Addressed

 The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:

 

1. Estate dispute with Son of Deceased Addressed

 

ESTATE OF LYNCH v. LYNCH, 2023 S.D. 23:  Father had been a lifelong farmer on 675 acres located close to Vermillion, running a “successful crop and cattle operation on approximately 675 acres of farmland near Vermillion.” Estate of father sued Son “alleging claims for fiduciary fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and elder exploitation.”  Son counterclaimed against “the Estate for conversion, among other claims.”  Jury ruled for Son on Estate’s claims against him; and, the trial court entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of Son on his counterclaim for conversion.   On appeal, the SD Supreme Court rendered a partial victory for the Estate, holding:

 

[¶58.] We reverse and remand the judgment as to the Estate’s claims involving the two payable-on-death CDs [Son] deposited in his individual account. On remand, the circuit court shall enter judgment as a matter of law for compensatory damages of $31,590.22, plus prejudgment interest, on the Estate’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion. Based upon this disposition, the Estate’s claim for punitive damages on this portion of the Estate’s claims remains an open question on remand. The remainder of the judgment on the Estate’s claims and [Son’s] claim for conversion is affirmed.

 

The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. 

 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Suppression Order Reversed: CARES Act funds NOT subject to repayment

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

 

1. Suppression of Evidence Order Reversed;

 

2. CARES Act funds NOT subject to repayment;

 

 

Summaries follows:

 

STATE v. GHEBRE, 2023 S.D. 21:  Defendant was charged with 3^rd degree Rape and Sexual Contact with person incapable of consent.  The trial court sustained the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Statements made by Defendant during the time a search warrant was being executed at his premises.  The trail court relied, in part, upon “an obvious language barrier” between the police officer and Defendant.  State sought an Intermediate Appeal. The SD Supreme Court reversed.  This decision is a 4-1 ruling, with the Court’s opinion authored by Justice Kern. Justice Myren “dissents without a writing.”  

 

BRACKEN v. DLR REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE DIVISION, 2023 S.D. 22:  Owner of Bed ‘N Breakfast in Custer County recovered $14,080 in Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) benefits under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act).  State Agency re-considered and sought repayment on the basis of its interpretation of being “unemployed.” Both the ALJ and the trial court ordered repayment.  The SD Supreme Court reversed, stating:

 

[¶28.] [T]he  basis identified by the ALJ for Bracken’s PUA ineligibility was what we have concluded to be an erroneous interpretation and application of the Self-Employment Rule.

 

This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

 

 

8th Circuit Affirms dismissal of suit against Meade County

 

The underlying controversy in this case (collapsing ground under homes) has garnered much publicity West River and elsewhere.  

 

Aga, et al. v Meade County:  One hundred + homeowners filed suit against Meade County in federal court “for letting their neighborhood be built over a mine.”  The trial court dismissed the complaint.  The 8^th Circuit affirmed the dismissal “for the reasons given by the district court.”  The 8^th Circuit opinion is a one-paragraph per curiam opinion, the entirety of which is set forth here:

 

A group of homeowners appeal the dismissal of their due-process claim against Meade County for letting their neighborhood be built over a mine. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the complaint failed to state a claim. See Kruger v. Nebraska, 820 F.3d 295, 301–03 (8th Cir. 2016) (reviewing the failure to state a claim de novo and explaining that the state-created-danger doctrine only applies to“immediate[] and proximate harm” (quotation marks omitted)); Dorothy J. v. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 7 F.3d 729, 733 (8th Cir. 1993) (discussing when a harm is “too remote” in time). We accordingly affirm for the reasons given by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

 

The Clerk’s summary is set forth below.   

Current Opinions are for Monday, May 08, 2023 

DISCLAIMER:  The following unofficial case summaries are prepared by the clerk's office as a courtesy to the reader.  They are not part of the opinion of the court.

223046U.pdf     05/08/2023  Kalyn Aga  v.  Meade County

   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  22-3046

   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Western   

   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Benton, and Stras, Circuit 

   Judges] 

   Civil case - Civil rights. Dismissal affirmed without comment.