Court Opinion

ID: 9710290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:06:05.913846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:55.676367
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring specially).
I would also reverse the trial court but would remand with instructions to terminate all alimony.
Remarriage automatically terminates alimony. See Annot., 48 A.L.R.2d 270 (1956). I support the holding of the Supreme Court of Alaska, Voyles, cited in the majority opinion. Basically, the Alaska Supreme Court holds that it is against public policy that a woman should have support or its equivalent during the same period of time from each of two men.*
Subsequent to her divorce from Lloyd Marquardt, Jr., Betty Marquardt married a gentleman by the name of Kenneth Hol-trop. Take stock of SDCL 25-7-1, which provides:
A person shall support himself or herself and his or her spouse out of his or her property or by his or her labor.
This simply means that Kenneth Holtrop owes a statutory duty to support his wife. She is the recipient of the beneficial language of the statute: she is, by law, entitled to receive support from her husband. Kenneth Holtrop is her husband. Lloyd Marquardt, Jr., is not her husband. Further, during the year 1984, which is the critical year, Kenneth Holtrop had an income of $27,820 and was well able to support his wife.
Can this happen under the majority’s open-ended decision? Jane Doe is married to John Doe; they are divorced and he is required to pay alimony. Jane then marries John Smith; he must support her by state law and the trial judge, when they are divorced, orders alimony. Jane now receives alimony from two different men. Enter Fred Smith. He marries Jane but, alas, alack, this third marriage goes awry and they are divorced. Yes, the trial court orders alimony as Fred is very well-to-do and is convinced Jane should have support (alimony) money. Where will this cycle of repetitive alimony (support) end? It should end with the first remarriage. When the new husband says “I will” or “I do,” he is the individual who bears the responsibility of providing food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and general care for his new wife. And not the ex-husband. An ex-husband might have a new wife to support. By law, he would be required to support her.
Unlike the prima facie rule, only the rule requiring Automatic termination can provide some certainty to an independent spouse who might also wish to enter into new marital relationships, raise a family, or take on new financial responsibilities.
To permit a spouse to elicit the support of two spouses simultaneously, a conceivable result under the prima facie rule, would be unreasonable. Because there *756is a legal obligation of support embodied in the new marital relationship, the obligation of support from the past marital relationship should end.
Voyles, 644 P.2d at 849. Authorities, other than Alaska, supporting my viewpoint: Chaachou v. Chaachou, 135 So.2d 206, 221 (Fla.1961); Despain v. Despain, 78 Idaho 185, 189, 300 P.2d 500, 503 (1956); Simpson v. Simpson, 18 Md.App. 626, 627, 308 A.2d 410, 412 (1973); Crum v. Upchurch, 232 Miss. 74, 82, 98 So.2d 117, 121 (1957).
This Court has the power to eliminate an alimony award on appeal. It is a most specific statute. SDCL 25-4-46.
See Connelly v. Connelly, 362 N.W.2d 91, 92 (S.D.1985) (Henderson, J., dissenting), for historical birth, growth, and evolution of alimony.

 However, Alaska frowns upon alimony and seeks "to provide for the financial needs of spouses by a property disposition, rather than by alimony." Voyles, 644 P.2d at 849 (quoting Malone v. Malone, 587 P.2d 1167, 1168 (Alaska 1978)). Cf. my most recent special writing on alimony, Tate v. Tate, 394 N.W.2d 309, 311 (S.D.1986) (Henderson, J., specially concurring), wherein I supported an alimony award of $200.00 due to the circumstances of the case.