Opinion ID: 1911452
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the requirements of SDCL 16-18-22 had been met?

Text: Jasper claims Smith did not comply with the statutory requirements of SDCL 16-18-22 [1] by posting a bond in an amount double the sum of the lien, and argues these requirements are jurisdictional. Thus, Jasper reasons that the alimony may not be released from the attorney's lien. Our review of the hearing on Jasper's attorney's fees indicates Jasper raised this issue before the trial court and thus it is preserved for our appellate review. Although we have not had prior need to interpret SDCL 16-18-22, we note that in general, a statutory bond must be construed for the purposes contained in that statute. State Sur. Co. v. Lensing, 249 N.W.2d 608, 611 (Iowa 1977); Nelson Roofing & Contracting, Inc. v. C.W. Moore Co., 310 Minn. 140, 245 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1976); Way v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles of State of Neb., 217 Neb. 641, 351 N.W.2d 46, 47 (1984); Giese v. Engelhardt, 175 N.W.2d 578, 586 (N.D.1970). The statute allows the trial court to set a bond in its discretion in a sum which includes a zero amount (a sum double the amount claimed, or in such sum as may be fixed by a judge). In this case that is exactly what the trial court did and proceeded to the lien issue on the merits. Given our decision in Karras and the authority of the trial court to set a zero bond, we hold that SDCL 16-18-22 is not jurisdictional as requiring the posting of a bond double the amount claimed under the lien. We further hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring what amounted to a zero-sum bond.