Court Opinion

ID: 9720410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:29:40.157516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:17.637758
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
I would affirm in all respects. The findings of fact that the majority claims are lacking support in the record are simply not important enough for reversal. As I stated in Parsons I:
The majority opinion unduly tinkers with a well-reasoned memorandum opinion and findings and conclusions which exceed twenty pages. Together, they present a complete and fair approach to the distribution of assets and obligations stemming from this divorce.
The majority opinion cites to Hautala v. Hautala, 417 N.W.2d 879 (S.D.1988) several times but fails to appreciate its message: “Although we urge the use of careful and consistent language, the issue is not the name placed on alimony, but whether the record supports the award.” Id. at 882.
The record supports this award and we should affirm under numerous recent South Dakota cases.
Parsons v. Parsons, 469 N.W.2d 581, 585 (S.D.1991) (Sabers, J., dissenting) (emphasis added).
This case is starting to remind me of the statement sometimes attributed to Yogi Berra: “This is like deja vu all over again.” This case may be referred to as Parsons II and then again it may be referred to as “Tinker II.”
WUEST, J., joins this dissent.