Court Opinion

ID: 9719653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:58:20.164739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:08.674359
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(specially concurring).
Viewed basically, as I understand it, ap-pellee has prevailed in that:
1. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in the division of property. Goehry v. Goehry, 354 N.W.2d 192, 194 (S.D.1984).
*8382. Trial court did not err in its lump sum alimony award of $10,000.00. Krage v. Krage, 329 N.W.2d 878, 879 (S.D.1983).
3. Trial court’s award of $5,000.00 unto Lynda Clarke for attorneys’ fees and costs was not an abuse of discretion. Lien v. Lien, 278 N.W.2d 436 (S.D. 1979).
On all three points, and with the above authorities to substantiate same, I concur.
We are reversing and remanding on one point, which is, as I understand it, that more testimony be taken to evaluate the true worth of the contract for deed awarded Lynda Clarke. Basically, we are down to arithmetic. Trial court, in my opinion, should rivet its thoughts and work ethic into this one issue. As Judge Dobberpuhl has written, hard evidence should be produced so that a true dollar evaluation may be established; then, the trial court will know the exact value of an award of that contract and fulfill its mission per the mandate of this Court. I would add that the briefs were advocatively skimpy on the valuation of the contract. It is urged, at least by this Justice, that the parties to this litigation spare us of a third appeal.