Opinion ID: 2123675
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding shirley attorney fees?

Text: During trial, Shirley submitted an exhibit establishing she had incurred $2,886 in attorney fees. The trial court awarded her partial attorney fees of $1,000. William contends this award constituted an abuse of the trial court's discretion. SDCL 15-17-7 gives the trial court discretion to award attorney fees in divorce cases, and we will not disturb its decision unless it has abused its discretion. The factors the court may consider in deciding whether to award attorney fees include the relative financial condition of the parties, the relative fault of the parties in prolonging litigation, the complexity of the issues, whether briefs were required and whether the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. Radigan v. Radigan, 465 N.W.2d 483, 487 (S.D.1991) (citations omitted). The relative financial condition of the parties has been previously outlined in this decision. As for the parties' relative fault in prolonging litigation, the trial court found: In Findings, which supposedly were to assist the Court, [Shirley] would assign an equity of $16,880.00 to [her] property and $25,540.00 to William's property whereas [William] would value equity of Shirley's property of $25,297.00 and [his own] at $12,105.00. Such an astonishing variation of values in the personal property indicates to the Court that counsel for the respective parties have gone with their clients on a leave of absence from reason. Rather than assist the Court, their findings are designed to confuse the Court. I find [Shirley's] valuations the more credible of the two. When a party so blatantly misstates value, the Court may opt to disregard the testimony in toto. With regard to the complexity of the issues, the trial court found, [t]here were no unusual or complicated legal issues involved in this divorce ... The bill submitted as evidence of Shirley's attorney fees reflects no charge for preparation of trial briefs. Finally, as is obvious, this case has been appealed to the Supreme Court. Neither Shirley nor William were awarded any substantial liquid assets. William's monthly income is approximately $353 more than Shirley's. William apparently misstated property valuations to the trial court which caused it confusion in the entry of its findings and thereby prolonged the litigation to that extent. Based upon these considerations, we find no abuse of discretion in the award of $1,000 in partial attorney fees to Shirley.