Summary
The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed a divorce proceeding involving farmland inherited by the husband before and during the marriage. The court affirmed the inclusion of the inherited property in the marital estate, concluding that the wife made more than de minimis contributions and that the property division was properly considered together with the denial of spousal support. The court also affirmed the denial of trial-level attorney fees and awarded the wife $3,000 in appellate attorney fees.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the circuit court erred by including James's inherited farmland in the marital estate.
- Whether the circuit court erred by valuing the parties' real property using an eighteen-month-old appraisal.
- Whether the circuit court erred by denying Marissa's application for reasonable attorney fees.
Holdings
- Inherited property is not automatically excluded from a marital-property division. It may be excluded only when the other spouse made no or merely de minimis contributions to its acquisition or maintenance and has no need for support. Because Marissa made substantial direct and indirect contributions and the property division was considered together with spousal support, the circuit court did not err by including the inherited farmland in the marital estate.
- The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Marissa's request for trial attorney fees because both parties retained substantial assets and resources sufficient to pay their own fees.
Key quotations
“Property inherited by one of the spouses is properly excluded from the marital estate when two conditions are satisfied: the other "spouse has made no or de minimis contributions to the acquisition or maintenance of an item of property and has no need for support[.]"” (757 N.W.2d at 322)
“Inherited property "is not ipso facto excluded" from the allocation under SDCL 25-4-44.” (757 N.W.2d at 322)
“This Court has consistently held that a homemaker's contribution to the family's upkeep is valuable and must be considered as no less significant and substantial to the accumulation of marital property than the other spouse's labor outside the home.” (757 N.W.2d at 326)
Factual background
James Terca inherited farmland, receiving one-half before the marriage and the other half nine years into the parties' eighteen-year marriage. During the marriage, farm income was commingled with marital funds and used for family expenses, marital property, and marital debts. Marissa served as a homemaker and mother, assisted with the farming operation, contributed to the hunting-guide business, and deposited her employment income into a joint account. James developed progressively disabling multiple sclerosis, while Marissa earned $9.50 per hour at the time of the divorce.
Procedural history
The circuit court granted Marissa a divorce, divided the parties' property, included James's inherited farmland in the marital estate, denied Marissa spousal support based in part on the property allocation, and denied her trial attorney-fee request. James appealed. Marissa raised additional issues by notice of review, and the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court and awarded Marissa $3,000 in appellate attorney fees.