Court Opinion

ID: 9736945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:10:48.593063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:55.594032
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. From the common law status of married women being economically incapacitated and dependent, alimony (a husband’s marital duty to support his wife when she is no longer his wife) was birthed. Women now hold over fifty percent of the jobs in the United States, and they are not, as a general rule, either economically incapacitated or dependent. As circumstances change, perceptions should change.
For a collection of alimony cases in this Court over a ten-year period, with my special writings, see Baltzer v. Baltzer, 422 N.W.2d 584, 589 (S.D.1988) (Henderson, J., concurring specially). Alimony has grown by leaps and bounds in South Dakota. I have warned this Court of those who would like to stand under the alimony tree and *91taste its sweet fruit. See Arens v. Arens, 400 N.W.2d 900, 903 (S.D.1987) (Henderson, J., specially concurring); Martin v. Martin, 358 N.W.2d 793, 801 (S.D.1984) (Henderson, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).
Since my recitation of the gathered cases in Baltzer, add these seven cases to the growing, flourishing alimony business/decisional law of this state: Foley v. Foley, 429 N.W.2d 42 (S.D.1988) (Henderson, J., dissenting); Wright v. Wright, 427 N.W.2d 372 (S.D.1988) (Henderson, J., concurring specially); Henricks v. Henricks, 426 N.W.2d 569 (S.D.1988) (Henderson, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part); Williams v. Williams, 425 N.W.2d 390 (S.D.1988) (Henderson, J., concurring in result in part, dissenting in part); Clarke v. Clarke, 423 N.W.2d 818 (S.D.1988) (Henderson, J., disqualified); Dixon v. Dixon, 423 N.W.2d 507 (S.D.1988) (Henderson, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part); and Moser v. Moser, 422 N.W. 2d 594 (S.D.1988) (Henderson, J., concurring in result, without writing).
While the world concerns itself with the greenhouse effect and strategic arms reduction between the two great powers, and while heat and drought has parched the plains causing bad crops and thirsty livestock with resulting bankruptcies and an exodus from our farms/ranches, this Court is inundated with alimony appeals.
Essentially, I respectfully dissent on three grounds: 1) The record contains no plan for rehabilitation; 2) rehabilitative alimony is properly awarded for a short period whereas this award stretches out for fifteen years; 3) James is required to bear an unreasonable burden.
The first two grounds for dissent are interrelated, as the term for which rehabilitative alimony is awarded depends on the receiving spouse’s training or educational needs. See O’Neill v. O’Neill, 13 Conn. App. 300, 536 A.2d 978 (1988).
The record indicates that Nancy sought permanent alimony, both in her complaint, and through her counsel at the conclusion of the trial. No evidence regarding any plans for further education or special training was presented to the trial court. Despite this, the trial court ordered James to pay “rehabilitative alimony” for fifteen years, at the rate of $500 per month for eleven of these years. The trial court’s award has no relation, whatsoever, to the evidence before that tribunal. A trial court's decision must be soundly and substantially based upon the evidence. Owen v. Owen, 351 N.W.2d 139 (S.D.1984). “The term ‘abuse of discretion’ refers to ‘a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence.’ ” Moore v. Moore, 354 N.W.2d 732, 733 (S.D.1984) (quoting Herndon v. Herndon, 305 N.W.2d 917, 918 (S.D.1981)). Here, the trial court abused its discretion.
“Rehabilitative alimony has been defined as alimony payable for a short, specific, and determinable period of time, which payment will cease when the recipient is, in the exercise of reasonable efforts, in a position of self-support.” 24 Am.Jur.2d Divorce and Separation, § 746, at 731 (1983) (emphasis added). “Rehabilitative alimony basically contemplates an award considered necessary to assist a dependent spouse in regaining a useful and constructive role in society through vocational training or retraining, or therapeutic rehabilitation.” Supra. “ ‘Rehabilitative alimony has been used frequently when a dependent spouse enters a marriage with marketable skills, which then deteriorated through lack of use, or the dependent spouse is capable of becoming self-supporting through training or academic study.’ ” Hoak v. Hook, 370 S.E.2d 473, 479 (W.Va.1988) (quoting Cross v. Cross, 363 S.E.2d 449, 451 (W.Va.1987)). As O’Neill indicates, the term of alimony is related to the educational end. Here, where there is no educational plan or announced ambition — goal, a fifteen-year term is uncalled for.
The third ground for dissent is that this husband should not be paying alimony. Is there a need or justification for alimony in this case? Ought he pay alimony? Read Straub v. Straub, 381 N.W.2d 260 (S.D.1986); Grant v. Grant, 5 S.D. 17, 57 N.W. 1130 (1894). This ex-wife is knocking at the door of the Lady of Equity. A divorce *92was granted to both parties. When she found a job, she also found another man, maintaining a “continuous relationship” with him since 1984. He happened to be an alcoholic journalist. She lost interest in her own husband and substituted her interest in her alcoholic journalist and in her job. She traveled by car, from Rapid City to the Fort Meade Hospital in Sturgis, specifically to visit this individual. Liberated? Husband was apparently a bad fellow. He did not like his wife having a relationship. The trial court found that ex-wife’s relationship adversely affected husband both mentally and physically.
Ought he pay alimony? No! She and the alcoholic journalist should not live on her ex-husband’s earnings for the next fifteen years.