Opinion ID: 901449
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Entitlement to Attorney's Fees under SDCL 15-17-38

Text: [¶17.] South Dakota utilizes the American rule that each party bears the burden of the party's own attorney['s] fees. Microsoft Antitrust Litigation, 2005 SD 113, ¶29, 707 NW2d at 98 (citing Crisman v. Determan Chiropractic, Inc., 2004 SD 103, ¶26, 687 NW2d 507, 513) (citing Public Entity Pool for Liability v. Score, 2003 SD 17, ¶7, 658 NW2d 64, 67-68)). However, there are two exceptions. The first is when the parties enter into an agreement entitling the prevailing party to an award of attorney's fees. Id. The second is when an award of attorney's fees is authorized by statute. Id. [¶18.] Grandparents contend that there was an implied agreement that the parties would pay their own attorney's fees. They claim that an implied agreement arose because each party hired their own legal representation and paid the bills associated with that representation without stating that any other person was responsible for the payment of such legal services. However, such individual arrangements for fees simply reflect that no agreement, express or implied, was reached on the subject of reimbursement. [¶19.] Grandparents next contend that SDCL 15-17-38 does not authorize attorney's fees because this was a guardianship case. When this matter was decided by the circuit court, SDCL 15-17-38 authorized attorney's fees in in all cases of divorce, annulment of marriage, determination of paternity, separate maintenance, support, or alimony. [6] Grandparents argue that guardianships were not included in this list of actions. [7] They also argue that although there was an ongoing divorce, they were ordered into the divorce merely because they were the court-appointed guardians. [¶20.] To support their arguments, Grandparents rely on In re Guardianship of T.L.R., 2002 SD 54, 645 NW2d 246. In that case, maternal grandparents were appointed guardians of T.L.R. The father filed a motion to terminate the guardianship, which the circuit court eventually granted. On appeal, the father filed a motion for attorney's fees. This Court stated that guardianship proceedings were not within the list of actions specified in SDCL 15-17-38, and therefore, fees were not authorized by the statute. Id. ¶19. We caution, however, that Guardianship of T.L.R. failed to mention the statutory language allowing fees in  guardianship proceedings. See SDCL 15-17-38 (2001) (emphasis added). In addition, the 2006 amendment of SDCL 15-17-38 now allows attorney's fees in cases of custody and visitation. See supra n6. Therefore, the attorney's fee rationale in Guardianship of T.L.R. is both inapplicable in this case and superseded in future cases. [¶21.] Finally, even if we were to apply the 2001 version of the statute, Guardianship of T.L.R. is factually distinguishable. It is distinguishable because those biological parents never married, and therefore, there was no divorce order governing custody. In contrast: the biological parents in the present case were married; the Grandparents intervened as parties in the divorce; the guardianship court deferred to the divorce court on the ultimate issue of custody; the divorce court entered the final order concerning custody; and Grandparents were parties in the post decree divorce proceedings concerning modification of visitation and custody. Considering these facts, we previously noted that although the ultimate termination of [Grandparents'] custodial rights took place through a dismissal of a guardianship, the court considered [Father's] motion to terminate the guardianship in the context of a divorce proceeding. [8] Guardianship of A.L.T. & S.J.T., 2006 SD 28, ¶38, 712 NW2d at 347. [9] This litigation occurred in the context of the divorce because [i]t is well settled in this state that a divorce court has continuing jurisdiction over its decrees, and [a]n application for modification or enforcement of such decree is a supplementary proceeding incidental to the original suit. It is not an independent proceeding or the commencement of a new action. Weekley v. Weekley, 1999 SD 162, ¶25, 604 NW2d 19, 25 (citing Hershey v. Hershey, 467 NW2d 484, 486 (SD 1991) (quoting Eggers v. Eggers, 82 SD 675, 679, 153 NW2d 187, 189 (1967) (citations omitted))). [¶22.] A more analogous case is Osgood v. Osgood, 2004 SD 22, 676 NW2d 145. In Osgood, the parents divorced and were granted joint legal custody. The paternal grandparents were later awarded visitation rights. The mother, as primary custodian, denied the grandparents their court ordered visitation. The grandparents filed a motion for relief and for attorney's fees in subsequent proceedings in the divorce action. On appeal, this Court affirmed the circuit court's award of grandparent's attorney's fees under SDCL 15-17-38. Id. ¶22. [¶23.] Here, Grandparents were formally joined as interested parties in the divorce. Furthermore, the ultimate custody decision was made in the divorce. And, they remained parties in the supplemental divorce proceedings to modify or terminate their custodial rights. Judge Tiede clearly recognized these facts stating: [I]t's clear that Judge McMurchie made an order, entered an order by which he in some manner joined or required or permitted the Stratmeyers to intervene in the divorce case, and his award of custody came through the divorce case. Now, if the Stratmeyers really didn't want to be there  you know  they had several options: They could have appealed the decision; they could have appealed being brought into the case, but for whatever reason they subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the [divorce] Court and Judge McMurchie; and when the order was entered, they did not appeal it. So I'm not so sure that it hasn't become the law of the case and they no longer can argue that, hey, we really didn't want to be there and we  you know  you can't nail me for anything because I didn't want to be there. Ultimately, because Father's motions were decided in a divorce proceeding in which Grandparents were parties, SDCL 15-17-38 authorized an award of attorney's fees.