Opinion ID: 1815715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: should alimony be increased?

Text: SDCL 25-4-41 provides that the trial court may award alimony as is deemed just having regard for the circumstances of the parties. To warrant modification of an alimony award, there must merely be a change of circumstances. Cole v. Cole, 384 N.W.2d 312 (S.D.1986); Lambertz v. Lambertz, 375 N.W.2d 645 (S.D.1985). The burden of proving a change in circumstances sufficient to justify modification of an alimony award is upon the party seeking modification. Rousseau v. Gesinger, 330 N.W.2d 522, 525 (S.D.1983). This court will not disturb an award of alimony unless it clearly appears that the trial court abused its discretion. Cole, 384 N.W.2d at 315; Straub v. Straub, 381 N.W.2d 260 (S.D.1986). The stipulation executed by the parties provided that:  Henry pay Betty $500 per month as alimony and her attorneys fees incident to the divorce;  Betty receive the family home in Pierre as her sole property;  During his lifetime, Henry pay all real estate taxes, mortgage payments, assessments, maintenance, including the furnishing of fuel oil, for her family home;  Betty remain the sole beneficiary on $120,000 of Henry's life insurance policies;  Henry maintain health and accident insurance coverage upon Betty for life;  Henry provide Betty with a car, free gasoline and car maintenance for life; and  Henry furnish Betty with the free use of the Wegner Auto Company Arizona home and the Wegner Auto Company Black Hills cabin on the same terms as such use was offered to other family members. At the October 10, 1985 hearing, Henry introduced a breakdown of the expenses he paid for Betty in 1984. According to his testimony, the total of such payments, including alimony, exceeded $16,000 in 1984, and averaged approximately $15,000 annually. The evidence shows that Henry fulfilled all aspects of the stipulation and assisted Betty financially when she was indebted to the IRS in 1984, and paid for her plane ticket when she desired to go to Arizona. The evidence further shows that Henry's health has deteriorated since the divorce. He is 58 years old. He had a heart attack in 1980. He had a stone removed from his only remaining kidney in April, 1983. He also had a prostate operation in August of 1983, and he suffers from hardening of the arteries, angina, and a heart rhythm problem for which he has been hospitalized. Henry will need a pacemaker within five years. These medical and hospital expenses are not entirely covered by his insurance. Betty is 58 years old and is in reasonably good health except for a drinking problem and high blood pressure which is controlled by medication. Betty asked for an additional $250 in alimony. She testified that her monthly household expenses total approximately $471, and that she is behind on a number of bills due to inflation. However, she did not produce any itemized statements. She testified that her present financial status prevents her from buying extras, like new clothes, shoes, entertainment, and travel. Although Henry admitted on deposition that he was able and willing to pay an additional $200 alimony per month, he did not believe he should be required to pay such an increase. Although Betty is a qualified bookkeeper, she has not attempted to procure employment to supplement her alimony payments. The parties' daughter offered her a bookkeeping job but she did not follow through with this position. The trial court found that inflation has increased only minimally since the divorce and that Betty failed to demonstrate any expenses in excess of those which were apparent at the time of the divorce in 1983. The trial court further found that although Betty was employable, she had made little or no effort to secure and maintain employment after the divorce. The court also found that Henry's medical problems have continued to worsen since the divorce, significantly increasing his medical bills. Therefore, the court concluded that Betty failed to sustain her burden of proving a change in circumstances sufficient to justify an increase in the present alimony award. We agree, and hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to modify the award of alimony in this case. See: Lampert v. Lampert, 388 N.W.2d 899 (1986).