Court Opinion

ID: 9663462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:39:42.720384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:50.452293
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting in part and concurring in result in part).
I dissent because the child support award is wholly inadequate under the evidence in this record.
Under SDCL 25-7-7, when the obligor’s net monthly income exceeds $1,500 the circuit court must exercise its discretion in setting the child support obligation. This discretion is not unfettered, but must have a sound basis in the evidence. Havens v. Henning, 418 N.W.2d 311 (S.D.1988). In Havens, the custodial parent petitioned the court to increase the father’s child support obligation for two remaining minor children. The circuit court found that the father’s net monthly income was $2,100 and increased the child support obligation to $334 per child per month or a total support award of $668. The award was challenged and upheld because of the increased net income of the father since the divorce, the increased cost of living, and the increased cost of raising children as they get older.
In this case, the trial court found that the defendant’s gross monthly income was approximately $5,029 per month and that he had additional monthly income of $1,301.50 from the Worthington, Minnesota truck stop and a Ronning Enterprises project which the court refused to consider. The court awarded $665 per month as the total child support. This award was unreasonable because the defendant’s net monthly income in this case is at least twice the amount of the net monthly income of the father in Havens and yet the child support award is $3.00 per month less.
The court also erred in failing to address the current financial needs of the minor children and disregarding the income of $1,301.50 from the Worthington and Ron-ning Enterprises projects. The majority opinion approves the trial court’s omission on the claimed basis that “Gregory did not receive the rental or interest income, he was without power to guide the disposition of this income, and the expenditure of the income did not inure to his benefit.” None of these statements have any real basis in fact and there is no proof in the record to support these positions. Gregory did receive the rental or interest income and he had power to guide the disposition of this income, and the expenditure of the income inured to his benefit.
SDCL 25-7-7 does not exclude these items, it includes them. As indicated in the majority opinion SDCL 25-7-7 defines monthly gross income to include, in pertinent part, “amounts received from the following sources: (2) Gain or profit from a business or profession, ... (4) Interest, dividends, rentals, royalties or other gain derived from investment of capital assets; ...” As further stated in the majority opinion, the statute goes on to provide that the court may allow or disallow deductions from a obligor’s property as monthly gross income, which, although listed on the obli-gor’s federal income tax return, do not require the disbursement of cash. Even if these funds were utilized to keep the truck stop in a reasonable state of repair, he received the income, he guided the disposition of this income, and the expenditure *742inured to his benefit. Clearly this income does not qualify as a deduction under the statute and an obligor should not be able to avoid his lawful obligations simply by utilizing the funds to make repairs.
Exhibit 3, the 1986 United States individual income tax return of the father, is even more startling. Line 17 of Schedule D shows net long-term gain of $335,070. Only forty percent of this figure ($134,028) is subject to tax and appears on line 13 as “taxable” capital gain. This, and other income totaled $207,068 which, after an IRA deduction of $2,000 and $12,000 for alimony resulted in a “taxable” income or adjusted gross income of $193,068. In other words, the taxable income may have been under $200,000, but the real income for 1986 was almost $400,000.
For this court to limit the child support award to $332.50 per month per child is incredible. Strange as it may seem, this amount is near the poverty line for one person. It is even more incredible when one considers the father’s real income for 1986 was $394,110. I would reverse and remand to the trial court to properly reconsider child support in accordance with South Dakota law and the guidelines set forth in SDCL 25-7-7. I also join Justice Morgan in that part of his concurrence in result in part regarding termination of alimony.
In addition, I would grant her petition for attorney’s fees in the sum of $1,500 in accordance with Malcolm v. Malcolm, 365 N.W.2d 863 (S.D.1985).