Opinion ID: 1998361
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: issue vi: whether father is entitled to attorney fees for the appeal.

Text: Father has filed a motion for appellant's attorney fees which is supported by a verified, itemized statement of the legal services rendered as required by Malcolm v. Malcolm, 365 N.W.2d 863 (S.D.1985). SDCL 15-17-38 provides that attorney fees may be granted in cases of domestic relations and support. Proceedings which are sufficiently intertwined with the domestic relation case do not prohibit such an award being made. See Estate of Thomas v. Sheffield, 511 N.W.2d 841, 844 (S.D.1994); Finck v. Finck, 354 N.W.2d 198, 202 (S.D.1984). Attorney fees on appeal may be granted, regardless of the success of the party requesting them, unless that party has proceeded in bad faith, or has brought a frivolous or unjustified action. Peterson v. Peterson, 434 N.W.2d 732, 738 (S.D.1989). In determining whether fees for the appeal are proper, we must consider the property owned by each party, the relative incomes, the liquidity of the assets and whether either party unreasonably increased the time spent on the case. Hautala v. Hautala, 417 N.W.2d 879, 883 (S.D.1988); Peterson, 434 N.W.2d at 738. In this case, no evidence regarding the property the parties owned and the liquidity of assets was entered. Regarding incomes, evidence demonstrated that Father earns $7.97 per hour plus approximately $207 per month in overtime. Mother earns $4.50 per hour, almost half of what Father earns. Finally, neither party spent an unreasonable amount of time on the appeal, an appeal which we feel was not filed in bad faith. On the basis of the facts in this case, we are of the opinion that attorney fees are not warranted. Consequently, Father's motion is denied. We modify the judgment as previously stated and affirm. MILLER, C.J., and SABERS, J., concur. WUEST and AMUNDSON, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part. SRSTKA, Circuit Judge, for HENDERSON, Retired Justice, who was a member of the Court at the time this action was submitted and who had disqualified himself from participating therein. KONENKAMP, J., who was not a member of the Court at the time this action was submitted, did not participate.