2 New SD Supreme Court Decisions Today

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning: 1) Brother who is not attorney is not entitled to perfect appeal; 2) Modification of Support Upheld; Summaries follow: DANIELSON v. LIFESCAPE, 2025 S.D. 56: Brother of disabled adult was also a court-appointed guardian. Defendant, “LifeScape, a service provider for adults with developmental disabilities terminated its services for [his sister.]” The Hearing Examiner and DHS affirmed the termination. Brother attempted to file an appeal to circuit court, but the appeal was dismissed because Brother is not a licensed attorney and refused to secure representation. Thereafter, Brother filed an appeal to the SD Supreme Court. This decision dismisses the appeal effort, with the Court’s opinion stating: [¶9.] [Brother] filed the notice of appeal on [Sister's] behalf. Because he may not represent her in court proceedings, the notice of appeal he filed was ineffective to invoke this Court’s appellate jurisdiction. See Stevens v. Jas A. Smith Lumber Co., 54 S.D. 170, 222 N.W. 665, 666 (1929) (“Proceedings in a suit by a person not entitled to practice are a nullity.”). Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. This is a 2+2-0 decision. Chief Justice Jensen did not participate. The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Myren (with Justice Salter in agreement). Justice Kern filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice DeVaney agreed, stating: [¶16.] In my view, depending on the circumstances of the case, particularly those involving appellants who may not be competent to file a notice of appeal on their own behalf, this Court could exercise its discretion to allow such appellants to proceed with a timely-filed appeal so long as they obtain legal counsel to represent them and file the briefs going forward. But here, it is clear from the underlying record that [Brother] was already given a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal counsel to represent [Sister] in this matter but was unable to do so. Thus, I agree that we must dismiss this appeal. PEERY v. PEERY, 2025 S.D. 57: A high-income earning H agreed to pay alimony/child support in the amount of $19,250 per month until the marital home was sold, then to pay $13,500 per month for a period of 6 years then to be reduced to $7,000 per month for another 9 years. At H’s request, the trial court modified the alimony by lowering the amount from $13,500 to $6,000 per month, without altering the duration. Although recognizing it had authority, under SDCL 25-7-7.3, to retroactively modify during the interim time (after filing and notice of hearing), the trial court elected not to do so. The trial court also declined to hold H in contempt, as requested by W. The SD Supreme Court affirmed all aspects of the lower court’s ruling. The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Myren. All five Justices agree with this result. Justice Salter filed a separate concurring opinion expressing his view as to why H’s “voluntary reduction in income can properly serve as a basis to modify his support obligation” in this situation. These decisions may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .