Court Opinion

ID: 9572561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:42:48.920549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:29.681618
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring in part; dissenting in part).
I.
I concur on the antenuptial agreement issue.
II.
I concur on the reversal of the property division issue; this trial court obviously did not obey our mandate in Ryken I. Clearly, Appellee Patti Ryken is not entitled to nearly a quarter of a million dollars for a very short, tumultuous marriage infused with lavish entertaining, spending $350,000 to remodel/refurbish a home, and a minimal effort to aid her husband in his business. I dissent to that part of this decision which revises the award to $100,000. She has not earned it; she does not deserve it. I would reverse this award with instructions to the trial court to equitably grant her a fair property division. Furthermore, I dissent to a 30-day requirement to pay this property division and other money stipends. It is totally unreasonable considering the financial circumstance of these parties. It is aiding a “gold-digger.”
I also dissent to the alimony award of $40,000. It is more “gold-digging” in a domestic relations court in this state. He ought not pay this award. The six controlling factors were not/and are not now considered under Caughron v. Caughron, 418 N.W.2d 791 (S.D.1988). Her employment is no worse off than before. She is in reasonably good health and can support herself. She has already actually received over $25,-000 in alimony!
III.
I concur with the decision on attorney’s fees, appraiser’s fees and accountant’s fees.