Court Opinion

ID: 9527359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:29:52.094691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:45.139993
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(specially concurring).
CHRONOLOGY
Divorce Decree entered: May 20, 1977
Divorce Decree vacated by Order: March 12,1982
March 12,1982 Order declared a nullity: September 19,1984
My special writing is moored to a state statute. Under SDCL 15-6-60(b), the March 12,1982 Order was not entered upon any of the grounds specified in sections (1), (2), and (3) thereof; nor could said order have been entered on any of the grounds in sections (4), (5), or (6), as the motion upon which it was predicated was not made “within a reasonable time.” Furthermore, the stipulation contained no facts which would trigger any of the grounds set forth in sections (1) through (6) of said statute. Thus, the September 19, 1984 Order declaring the March 12, 1982 Order to be a nullity was sound. Therefore, I would affirm the divorce court in holding the March 12, 1982 Order to be a nullity; and further affirm the trial court’s order in reinstating the Decree of Divorce. I agree with the majority opinion that the appellant may have some civil remedy to determine ownership of property, but question highly that the “new divorce” action, which is now extinct, is a proper vehicle for a determination of property rights (as suggested by the trial court in the proceedings below).