Court Opinion

ID: 9662996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:25:37.499839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:44.662328
License: Public Domain

WUEST, Acting Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur with the result in this ease, and agree that contempt cannot be used to collect the past due housing allowance because no order was entered, which has been violated. However, the court could, in my opinion, enter an order based on the January 12, 1982, supplemental agreement which, if later violated, could under appropriate circumstances be enforced by contempt.
I agree with the majority opinion regarding future allowances for attorney fees. A past decision indicates judges are possessed of special expertise in fixing attorney fees. See Scott v. Hetland, 51 S.D. 552, 215 N.W. 778 (1927). I doubt that; but, in any event, in the future we should have some type of evidence or basis for reaching a conclusion rather than resorting to “ballpark” figures.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice FOSHEIM joins in this special concurrence.