Court Opinion

ID: 9571742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:34:49.616476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:53.627170
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring in part, concurring in result in part, and dissenting in part).
I.
Alimony and property division must be considered together. Krage v. Krage, 329 N.W.2d 878 (S.D.1983). Majority opinion reflects “the amount of alimony must be reconsidered in light of our holding remanding the property division for reconsideration.” I agree. Therefore, said citation and the majority’s above expression eviscerates (or should) this inconsistent statement on alimony: “We cannot say that this award (of $500 per month alimony for twenty years) was so excessive in light of the trial court’s findings as to evidence an abuse of discretion.” Wife has excellent health and is fully employable. These two factors, plus the holding of Krage, should be considered by the trial court in its new *512decision. Therefore, I concur in result only to the alimony dissertation believing it has inherent conflict. Considering the holding in Krage, it is wrong to try to “lock in” the $500.00 per month alimony award.
II.
In concurring on the “lost career opportunity,” this award would have impressed upon ex-husband an obligation to pay $120,-000.00 in additional payments, as payments would be $1,000.00 per month for 20 years (in addition to the $500.00 monthly alimony). Kanta is a postal employee, not Johnny Carson or Donald Trump. Such a 20-year award is not based upon any standards heretofore expressed by this Court. The ex-Mrs. Kanta is attempting to impose a tort theory (for damages) in a divorce case. There are seven considerations, explicitly set forth by this Court in several decisions, which are a blueprint for property division. Example: Baltzer v. Baltzer, 422 N.W.2d 584 (S.D.1988). Linda Lea M. Viken, counsel for Susan Kanta, co-authored an article with a Dr. Brown captioned Recognition of Homemaker Career Opportunity Costs and Marital Dissolution Cases, 35 S.D.L.Rev. 41 (1989). Though these two individuals wrote the article and then implanted its theory, in this case, it is not a recognized right. It contravenes settled law in this state. Brown, an author, was then the star witness on an economic theory. Result of all this: big divorce case in the Supreme Court' of our state with a disproportionate division of a mailman’s lifetime savings and property. I have noted, in this record, that substantial evidence exists reflecting that Susan Kanta not only turned down promotions but chose, also, not to seek any additional education. She was encouraged to educationally improve herself but said no. The mailman, while working very hard, continued to advance himself with additional education. Ultimately, he attained an important supervisory position.*
III.
Concerning the retirement fund award of a present actual value of contributions made, I agree with the rationale of the 1990 West Virginia decision of Bettinger, cited in the majority opinion.
IV.
I strongly dissent to an award of attorney’s fees at the trial court level. Appellee and her counsel made no record below nor offered any testimony with respect thereto. Furthermore, Susan Kanta was awarded $50,000 in cash or assets convertible to cash. She has liquidity to defray her own attorney’s fees. Also a factor against an award of attorney’s fees to her counsel is the calculated, orchestrated, and inventive attempt to circumvent the settled law of this state. Counsel and her client sought to create a tort within a divorce action. As per Lien v. Lien, 278 N.W.2d 436 (S.D.1979) and Prentice v. Prentice, 322 N.W.2d 880 (S.D.1982), the appellee and her counsel increased, unreasonably, the time spent on this case and created a burdensome complexity of the issues. Counsel and her client should not be rewarded for creating a test tube case — orchestrated entirely by counsel and her expert, Brown. Therefore, I dissent to Justice Amundson’s writing in this regard. I would award $2,743.26 appellate attorney’s fees to the principal winning party in this action, the appellant. Susan Kanta has the liquidity to defray these appellate fees and she has essentially lost this entire appeal, with the exception of the retirement issue. Appellant’s record on appellate attorney’s fees is properly documented under Malcolm.

 One of God’s greatest gifts to man is work. It does wonders for your pocketbook and soul. It invigorates your mind. It is a wonderful ethic and Susan Kanta should try it.