Court Opinion

ID: 9690094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:53:26.466491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:53.518208
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I. IMAGINARY CLOSING COSTS AWARD
In determining property values, Donna Abrams presented an appraisal showing the market value of the home to be $68,000. Larry Abrams should have realized that the home would be considered in determining the divorce settlement. He failed to provide contrary evidence to this amount.
*353However, the trial court went one step further by adding closing costs into the mix. Although the Abrams may have contemplated selling the house, such sale did not occur. Generally, something is a contingent liability when it depends upon some future event, which may or may not happen thereby making it uncertain whether it will ever become a liability. Hansen v. Hansen, 302 N.W.2d 801, 803 (S.D.1981).
Closing costs are contingent upon the sale of the house, an event which was purely speculative at the time of trial. “Speculative contingent liabilities should not be considered in apportioning the parties’ assets for purposes of a property division.” Hansen, 302 N.W.2d at 802 (quoting Wallahan v. Wallahan, 284 N.W.2d 21, 26 (S.D.1979)). Donna received the $68,000 home plus $10,183 in alleged closing costs. Forget the fact that the closing costs here are 15% of the value of the home. She has been awarded $10,183, yet never will have to sell the home to justify the receipt of these costs. Essentially, this is an award of an imaginary dollar amount. Such an imaginary award is an abuse of discretion. Hanks v. Hanks, 296 N.W.2d 523, 526 (S.D.1980). Thus, the $10,183 award should be eliminated.
II. FATHER DENIED REASONABLE VISITATION
I likewise dissent to the failure, by the trial court, to consider the home study recommendations of Jean L. Thompson, M.A., which has, in effect, foreclosed Larry Abrams from reasonably visiting his daughter, Amber. Failing to structure any visitation to implement its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law concerning the custody evaluation report, this case should be reversed and remanded so as to insure Larry Abrams’ rights of reasonable visitation of Amber. As it now stands, Larry may visit Amber only at the mother’s whim, fancy or mercy.
During the entire pendency of these proceedings, Larry seldom saw his daughter. In an Order to Show Cause proceeding held prior to trial, testimony established this to be a fact. Further, the trial court realized there existed a problem in this regard. Recognizing the problem and then adopting Conclusion of Law #4: “The care, custody and visitation of the children should be placed in conformance with the home study recommendations on file herein,” the trial court established no structured visitation. Such a judicial result is inconsistent with the findings of the home study evaluation. And it is inconsistent with Findings of Fact #11 and # 12. Said study recommended to the trial court the following, inter alia: (1) No limit on telephone contacts between the children and either parent; (2) The children should spend Mother’s Day with the mother and Father’s Day with the father; (3) “Structured visits [with Amber] are necessary”; (4) Structured visits by mother with Larry “will not work”; (5) The major holidays of Easter, Thanksgiving and Christmas should be alternated to continue the children’s relationship with extended family members and develop new traditions and rituals with each parent; it is important for Larry, Don and Amber to be together on holidays; and (6) During the summer months, each parent should have up to three weeks of time with the children to allow for an out-of-town vacation. Thereby, father will have a meaningful part of Amber’s life. Findings of Fact must support the Conclusions of Law and judgment. Hartpence v. Youth Forestry Camp, 325 N.W.2d 292 (S.D.1982). This denial of reasonable visitation constitutes undeserved ill-treatment. It is an abuse of discretion. Shoop v. Shoop, 460 N.W.2d 721, 725-26 (S.D.1990).
III. PROPERTY DIVISION AND ABUSE OF DISCRETION
Although the trial court has a broad discretion in dividing marital property, it is to be remembered that this broad discretion is not an uncontrolled discretion; therefore, the exercise thereof must have a sound and substantial basis in the testimony. SDCL 25-4-44. Fink v. Fink, 296 N.W.2d 916 (S.D.1980). It is axiomatic that each case must be judged upon its own set of facts.
In the trial arena, litigation is fevered. We must remember that each trial court in our state works independently. They possess no self-regulating capacity to provide uniformity on decisions throughout South *354Dakota. Therefore, by appellate review, trial courts’ decisions are reversed in some cases because of petitions for redress filed in the appellate court by the citizenry. If this Court were to approve of each decision in the trial court, there would be no reason for our existence. We owe a duty, under the settled law of this state, and by our inherent structure, to review a division of property, in a divorce case, to breathe life into the rule that judicial discretion must have a sound and substantial basis in the testimony. In my opinion, Larry Abrams has been aggrieved by the decision below concerning property matters. He ends up losing his home, paying child support of $600 per month, and paying approximately 50% of one pension and 32.5% of another. He has served the state of South Dakota well in the South Dakota Highway Patrol and the South Dakota National Guard. He did not want a divorce. His wife wanted a divorce. To her, it is, essentially, goodbye husband, I do not want you anymore, but I desire approximately 50% of what you have worked for all of your adult life plus the home and plus $600 child support. And occasionally, if you are lucky, you will get to see your daughter.
He anguished that there was no family counseling because none was forthcoming. This fact was established by the court ordered home study evaluation. His ex-wife has excellent health and works daily. At the time of the divorce action in the spring of 1993, her current gross annual income was approximately $23,000 per year. His current gross annual income, including wages as a seasonal ranger at Mount Rushmore, retirement and the National Guard was approximately $29,600. Therefore, the income of each individual involved in this divorce has no great disparity. She is free to date and to live her own life as she sees fit but she wants to do it on Larry Abrams’ pensions. In a sense, she wants to be independently dependent. We live in a different world and in different times. We live in a “Me Generation.” Family unity and family sovereignty, central to the organization and foundation of the Christian social .order, is old hat. At one time, the family was the major welfare agency caring for its old and young, relatives and friends. But that, largely, has dissipated, too. Larry is caught up in the new order which is an abomination of family life.
Equity is for both women and men. Equity must be explicit enough and accurate enough and practicable enough so as to offer freedom from all influences which affect the truth or accuracy of its pronouncement. In my opinion, Larry Abrams has not been done equity, either by the trial court or this Court. Donna worked nearly all of her married life and does not deserve to be turned out in the cold. Had this trial court awarded her one-half or smaller portion of his major pension, the pension he receives from the South Dakota Highway Patrol, it perhaps would be somewhat understandable. However, the trial court went further and awarded her a percentage of his National Guard benefits. We know not if the husband will ever be awarded these benefits. If he dies before attaining the age of 60, no benefits will be awarded. But at this time, she is awarded 32.5% of his benefits earned during the marriage, that is to say, 6½ years out of 20— providing he has 20 years of service and attains the age of 60. The trial court could put no present value on this National Guard pension award, because the present value could not be determined. Reader, if he gets this National Guard pension, we know not, but she is awarded such a fortuity. The Highway Patrol pension is set in stone and, therefore, it can be divided today. One-half of one good pension is surely enough for her. Wife, as outlined above, has good health and is capable of earning a living.
According to a report filed in this case, it is noted that Larry has heart problems. Must he drive himself on for a second pension so that she can receive 32.5% of that pension, i.e., the National Guard pension? What happens to his incentive and his desire to live a normal life? Apparently, he is to serve, serve, serve so that she can get a percentage of a National Guard pension also. The Bible teaches us that we must earn our bread by the sweat of our brow. She wants her living, throughout life, even when she no longer desires him as a husband, from the sweat of Larry Abrams’ brow. Happy days for her, she will receive $478.83, under this decision, directly from the state of South Dakota as *355part of the Highway Patrol pension. Add on the fact that the $600 he pays in child support will be used, in part, for food, lights, heat, and shelter for her. Then, consider her gross annual income of $23,000 per year. In my opinion, this straps Larry Abrams and it weights the equities to a point of an abuse of discretion. Why? She receives $7,200 in child support per year and $5,745.96 by way of one-half of the Highway Patrol pension. This is a total of $12,945.96 per year. This is deducted from his net income. Thus, his security is threatened, if not destroyed.
A year after I joined this Court, in 1980, there were seven factors set forth in determining the fairness of an award on marital assets. One of those factors was the contribution of each party. Clement v. Clement, 292 N.W.2d 799 (S.D.1980). Larry has made, by far, the greatest financial contribution by virtue of his salary in the South Dakota Highway Patrol. While also participating in the National Guard, he took seasonal employment as a ranger at Mount Rushmore. He was a hard worker and a good producer. His life has been destroyed by her desire to be free of the marriage bonds. A pall enshrouds his retirement. His security is diminished. And yes, he has the audacity, when paying child support of $600 per month, to desire a share in the life of his daughter, Amber.
I never saw anything to suggest in Larry’s pleas to the trial court or in his briefs in the Supreme Court to obtain her pension, which present value cannot be determined. If she is awarded approximately one-half of his paramount pension and some day has her own pension, has she not been awarded enough? Why does she need the National Guard pension, too? She, in the “Me Generation,” wanting her freedom, desires to make no sacrifices in her economic lifestyle. She wants her economic lifestyle heightened. Alas, alack, when an apple is cut in half, there are not two apples. And although this writing might seemingly portray some harsh facts, the appellant, Larry Abrams, is entitled to justice at the Bar. There has, in my opinion, been a division of assets in an une-quitable manner. Such is the question of review before us. Stenberg v. Stenberg, 90 S.D. 229, 240 N.W.2d 100 (1976). So many criteria has escaped the trial court and this Court in this decision: The ages of the parties, their state of health, their ability to earn a living, the income-producing capacity of each party, and the contribution of each party to the accumulation of the property. Hanson v. Hanson, 252 N.W.2d 907 (S.D.1977). Accord Lien v. Lien, 278 N.W.2d 436 (S.D.1979).
As the majority notes in the closing paragraph of Issue 3, the relative fault of the parties is not at issue here. The record reveals the parties stipulated to a divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences. By quoting Fait v. Fait, 345 N.W.2d 872, 873 (S.D.1984), the majority implies that my present dissent is based upon fault; it is not I concurred in Fait. With Larry forfeiting nearly $13,000 of his $29,000 income to Donna, he will be left with just under $17,000 a year while Donna retains nearly $36,000. No, I speak of inequity, not fault.