Court Opinion

ID: 9672433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:55:01.586275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:16.138672
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Justice
(concurring in result in part and dissenting in part).
Because I believe that the majority misses the crucial point and reverses the trial court for the wrong reason, I can only concur in the result.
*385Although I agree with the majority that the trial court misperceived the Internal Revenue laws, I am convinced that such error is immaterial. The significant factor in this appeal is that no evidence was presented to the trial court and the trial court made no finding that there had been a change in circumstances to warrant modification. SDCL 25-4-45; State ex rel. Dryden v. Dryden, 409 N.W.2d 648 (S.D.1987); Gross v. Gross, 355 N.W.2d 4 (S.D.1984); Tank v. Tank, 272 N.W.2d 831 (S.D.1978). Absent such evidence and findings, it was improper for the trial court and the majority to address the merit issues dealing with Internal Revenue laws.
I agree with Justice Henderson that the award of attorney fees and costs is inappropriate in this case.