Court Opinion

ID: 9717845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:11:26.172033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:53.395593
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur with that part of the majority opinion which affirms the valuation and distribution of the marital assets. However, I would remand the entire alimony question for reconsideration by the trial court. Therefore, I dissent from that part of the majority opinion which affirms what it characterizes as “rehabilitative alimony.”
As noted by the majority, the trial court awarded alimony1 of $600 per month for *593one year, followed by $400 per month alimony payments for nine years, contingent upon the condition that she not die, remarry, or cohabitate with a man. Nowhere in its memorandum decision, findings of fact, conclusions of law, or decree of divorce did the trial court in any manner indicate or specify that it was awarding rehabilitative alimony.2
It appears to me that there is some confusion among the trial bench and bar as to the distinctions between alimony, rehabilitative alimony, and reimbursement alimony. My review of the cases dealing with rehabilitative and reimbursement alimony convinces me that our prior holdings, although abundantly clear as they apply to the facts presented therein, may not be completely or accurately comprehended. Tesch v. Tesch, 399 N.W.2d 880 (S.D.1987); Martin v. Martin, 358 N.W.2d 793 (S.D.1984); Wehrkamp v. Wehrkamp, 357 N.W.2d 264 (S.D.1984); Saint-Pierre v. Saint-Pierre, 357 N.W.2d 250 (S.D.1984); Booth v. Booth, 354 N.W.2d 924 (S.D.1984). For that reason, I take the liberty of setting forth a brief summary of definitions and distinctions.
ALIMONY
Generally stated, alimony is an allowance for support and maintenance, having as "... its sole object the provision of food, clothing, habitation, and other necessaries for the support of a spouse.” 24 Am.Jur. 2d Divorce and Separation § 520 (1983). One need only examine the numerous annotations to our prior holdings under the statute (SDCL 25-4-41) to see that we have given clear, definitive guidance to the bench and bar as to the appropriate factors to apply in considering alimony requests.
REHABILITATIVE ALIMONY
The specific use of the term “rehabilitative alimony” is relatively new to this court. Wehrkamp, supra; Saint-Pierre, supra; Booth, supra.
Although we have not specifically defined the term, it seems clear that its application has followed the general definition found at 24 Am.Jur.2d Divorce and Separation § 746 (1983), as being an award
... 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.
Rehabilitative alimony is designed to place the dependent spouse in an income-generating position, which would free the obligor spouse from further obligation as well as relieve society from a need to support such party.” 24 Am.Jur.2d Divorce and Separation § 521 (1983).
In Saint-Pierre, 357 N.W.2d at 261, we indicated that rehabilitative alimony is appropriately granted when
... the contributing supporting spouse requires a lump sum or a short term award to achieve economic self sufficiency or to improve or refresh his or her job skills.
REIMBURSEMENT ALIMONY
Reimbursement alimony seems to be a hybrid of rehabilitative alimony. In Saint-Pierre, 357 N.W.2d at 262, we said:
... in a proper case the trial court should award alimony as reimbursement to the supporting spouse for his or her contribution to the non-working spouse’s obtaining of an advanced training....
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED
The majority has articulated the well-settled factors which trial courts should consider in awarding alimony. I will not reiterate them here.
*594However, the majority overlooks that additional factors must be considered in awarding rehabilitative or reimbursement alimony. In Saint-Pierre, 357 N.W.2d at 262, we specifically held:
... the trial court should consider all relevant factors, including the amount of the supporting spouse’s contributions, his or her foregone opportunity to enhance or improve professional or vocational skills, and the duration of the marriage following completion of a non-supporting spouse’s professional education.
In the present case, I am convinced that the alimony awarded by the trial court needs to be totally reconsidered and then be supported by appropriate findings, for the following reasons:
(1) If the trial court intended to require typical alimony, it erred because the award was excessive in amount and duration, for all the reasons stated in the majority opinion.
(2) If, however, the trial court intended to award either rehabilitative or reimbursement alimony, it erred in (a) failing to designate it as such, and (b) failing to make the appropriate findings to support the award, e.g. need to achieve self sufficiency, need to improve or refresh job skills, the amount of the supporting spouse’s contributions, her foregone opportunity to enhance or improve professional or vocational skills, the duration of the marriage following completion of the non-supporting spouse’s professional education, etc.
Both parties to this action deserve a reconsideration of the award under the appropriate guidelines.
I am authorized to state that Justice MORGAN joins in this concurrence in part and dissent in part.

. Although not raised on appeal, it is interesting to note that appellee never requested alimony in her pleadings. She merely requested an equitable property division, attorney fees, and the *593standard boiler plate language requesting “such other and further relief as the court shall deem just and proper.”

. However, at the conclusion of the trial, immediately prior to adjournment, the trial court made the following statement:
"Only issue is going to be alimony. You might not like what I’m going to do. It’s not going to be very hard for me to put values on things to do that. I can do that in my sleep. The only issue is rehabilitative alimony.”