Opinion ID: 1969398
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issue ii: did the trial court abuse its discretion in making its division of marital property and debt?

Text: In making the property division, the court ordered Connie to return a number of listed items of personal property to John. In particular, there were a number of wedding gifts that John wanted. The other major consideration with regard to marital property division was the division of debt. The court concluded: [John] shall pay the debt to Citibank Mastercard in the amount of $5,559.57[,] $215.00 [of] which was [Connie's] debt before the parties' relationship, for a total of $5,344.57; and one-half of the debt to Central Plains Clinic in the amount of $115.76[.] [Connie] shall pay the debt to Andrea's Photo Design in the amount of $519.05; and one-half of the debt to Central Plains Clinic in the amount of $115.76[.] Connie had also testified that she was a devout Roman Catholic, and requested the court to order John to pay $650 to the Catholic Diocese so she could obtain an ecclesiastical annulment of the marriage so that she could receive the rites of the Catholic church. While the court expressed sympathy for the request, the judge stated since he had never seen that kind of award in a decision, he could not grant the request. Thus, John was assigned $5,460.33 of debt, while Connie was assigned $634.81 of debt, plus the cost of the annulment ($650). This court has consistently recognized the principal factors to be considered in making an equitable property division as: (1) the duration of the marriage; (2) the value of the property; (3) the age of the parties; (4) the health of the parties; (5) the parties' competency to earn a living; (6) the contribution of each party to the accumulation of the property; and (7) the income-producing capacity of the parties' assets. Vander Pol v. Vander Pol, 484 N.W.2d 522, 524 (S.D.1992) (citing Kanta v. Kanta, 479 N.W.2d 505, 508 (S.D.1991); Ryken v. Ryken, 461 N.W.2d 122, 126 (S.D.1990); Baltzer v. Baltzer, 422 N.W.2d 584, 587 (S.D.1988)). `A trial court has broad discretion with respect to property division and we will not set aside its judgment unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown.' Schwab v. Schwab, 505 N.W.2d 752, 755 (S.D.1993) (quoting Studt v. Studt, 443 N.W.2d 639, 642 (S.D. 1989)). `The term abuse of discretion refers to a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence.' Vander Pol, 484 N.W.2d at 524 (quoting Kanta, 479 N.W.2d at 507 (citations omitted)). Since the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law clearly demonstrate that consideration was given to each factor, it is unnecessary to reiterate each of them here. Kappenmann v. Kappenmann, 479 N.W.2d 520, 524 (S.D.1992). The court took particular note that John has a college education and is working on a master's degree and is employed as a civil engineer with an income of at least $40,000 annually, thus he is capable of earning a substantial income. Connie has a high school diploma and works at Citibank, earning about $12,000 annually. Upon John's urging, Connie quit working the night shift where she earned a night shift differential and began working the day shift at a lower rate of pay. [1] She cannot immediately switch back to the night shift until there is an opening. At the beginning of the relationship (October 1992), Connie had a balance on her Citibank charge card of $215.77. By the time of the marriage (January 1993) the balance had ballooned to $4044.42the bulk of which appeared to be wedding and honeymoon expenses. Although John had $35,000 in savings, plus approximately $28,000 in pension plans, he encouraged Connie to put these wedding-related expenses [2] on her charge card because she had a lower rate of interest as a Citibank employee. The trial court found as a fact that the credit card debt of the parties would not be as high as it is had it not been for the marriage and [John's] insistence that all property be kept as separate as possible. [John] should have been taking on some of the expenses of the parties from the beginning of the relationship. The court stated from the bench that, I know [John] wanted his wedding presents and he got those. I think he ought to take responsibility for the debts, too, because the debts would not have been incurred without the marriage[.] Other contributions and expenses, such as some electrical and landscaping work on the house were done at John's suggestion and direction. It is unlikely that Connie would have spent those monies on her own, with her limited income. [3] Conversely, John makes more than three times as much money as Connie, and has no dependents. Based on our review of the record, we cannot find that the court abused its discretion on the division of property and liabilities. We affirm the trial court on this issue.