376 N.W.2d 571 (S.D. 1985), 14780, Garnos v. Garnos

Docket Nº14780, 14790.
Citation376 N.W.2d 571
Opinion JudgeThe opinion of the court was delivered by: Hertz
Party NameJudith A. GARNOS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Veran N. GARNOS, Defendant and Appellee.
AttorneyThomas J. Nicholson of MC Farland, Petersen & Nicholson, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Attorneys for plaintiff and appellant.
Case DateNovember 06, 1985
CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota

Page 571

376 N.W.2d 571 (S.D. 1985)

Judith A. GARNOS, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

Veran N. GARNOS, Defendant and Appellee.

Nos. 14780, 14790.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

November 6, 1985

Considered on Briefs Sept. 9, 1985.

Page 572

Thomas J. Nicholson of McFarland, Petersen & Nicholson, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and appellant.

Charles M. Thompson and Patricia A. Meyers of May, Adam, Gerdes & Thompson, Pierre, for defendant and appellant.

HERTZ, Acting Justice.

Judith A. Garnos (appellant) and Veran N. Garnos (appellee) were granted a divorce on October 9, 1984. The trial court ordered joint custody of the parties' two minor children, with the appellant having primary custody during the school year. In addition, the court made an award for child support, alimony, a division of the property, and attorneys fees. Appellant appeals from that portion of the decree regarding alimony, property division and child support. The appellee has filed a Notice of Review on the issues of custody, alimony and attorneys fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

The parties were married on June 7, 1969. Two children were born of this marriage and at the time of the trial in this matter, were five and seven years of age. Appellant is 37 years of age and the appellee 42. Appellant suffers from hypoglycemia, which is the beginning of diabetes; however, at this stage, it can be controlled by diet. Both parties have a college degree and were employed as teachers at the outset of the marriage. Appellant quit her teaching position in 1976 by reason of the birth of her first child; however, she did some substitute teaching thereafter. Appellant resumed her teaching career in the Hanson County School System in 1984 and continues to remain in that employment.

At the time of their marriage appellant owned no property of her own. Appellee was the owner of a substantial amount of real property, which he acquired through his father pursuant to an estate plan.

Appellant received as a gift from appellee's father 59.7 acres of land, and the parties during their marriage purchased additional ranch land totalling some 1,066 acres.

The trial court ordered that appellant be paid $25,000.00 in cash as her division of the property, which sum was to be paid by the appellee within six months after the entry of the Decree of Divorce. Further, the trial court ordered that appellee pay to appellant $600.00 per month alimony for ninety consecutive months, to be terminated upon the death or remarriage of the appellant. Appellant was also awarded the primary custody of the two children for nine months of the school year and appellee to have the children for the three months during the summer vacation. Appellee was required to pay $200.00 per month per child during the months that the children were in the custody of appellant. The trial court did not designate either party responsible for medical insurance of the children. The personal property of the parties was divided by mutual agreement between the parties.

The various issues raised in this appeal will be separately stated and so treated.

I

Whether the trial court abused...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 practice notes
  • 422 N.W.2d 584 (S.D. 1988), 15641, Baltzer v. Baltzer
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • April 13, 1988
    ...the parties to the accumulation of the property; and the income producing capacity of the parties' individual assets. Garnos v. Garnos, 376 N.W.2d 571 (S.D.1985); Wallahan v. Wallahan, 284 N.W.2d 21 (S.D.1979). Fault should not be considered. SDCL 25-4-45.1. While these factors are consider......
  • 532 N.W.2d 65 (S.D. 1995), 18812, Endres v. Endres
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • May 17, 1995
    ...an important consideration in the division of property. Johnson, 471 N.W.2d at 160; Strickland, 470 N.W.2d at 839; Garnos v. Garnos, 376 N.W.2d 571, 573 (S.D.1985). We next note the trial court stated in its memorandum decision that "[t]he assets assigned to the defendant are primarily......
  • 523 N.W.2d 410 (S.D. 1994), 18521, Kappenman v. Kappenman
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • October 26, 1994
    ...in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Garnos v. Garnos, 376 N.W.2d 571 (S.D.1985). "The term, 'abuse of discretion' refers to a discretion exercised to an end or purpose, not justified by, and clearly against......
  • 543 N.W.2d 795 (S.D. 1996), 19013, Grode v. Grode
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • February 14, 1996
    ...to try the case; (7) whether written briefs were required; and (8) whether an appeal to this court is involved. Garnos v. Garnos, 376 N.W.2d 571, 575 (S.D.1985) (citations omitted). On an appeal to this court these elements are also considered. Rykhus v. Rykhus, 319 N.W.2d 167, 171 (S.D.198......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
39 cases
  • 422 N.W.2d 584 (S.D. 1988), 15641, Baltzer v. Baltzer
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • April 13, 1988
    ...the parties to the accumulation of the property; and the income producing capacity of the parties' individual assets. Garnos v. Garnos, 376 N.W.2d 571 (S.D.1985); Wallahan v. Wallahan, 284 N.W.2d 21 (S.D.1979). Fault should not be considered. SDCL 25-4-45.1. While these factors are consider......
  • 532 N.W.2d 65 (S.D. 1995), 18812, Endres v. Endres
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • May 17, 1995
    ...an important consideration in the division of property. Johnson, 471 N.W.2d at 160; Strickland, 470 N.W.2d at 839; Garnos v. Garnos, 376 N.W.2d 571, 573 (S.D.1985). We next note the trial court stated in its memorandum decision that "[t]he assets assigned to the defendant are primarily......
  • 523 N.W.2d 410 (S.D. 1994), 18521, Kappenman v. Kappenman
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • October 26, 1994
    ...in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Garnos v. Garnos, 376 N.W.2d 571 (S.D.1985). "The term, 'abuse of discretion' refers to a discretion exercised to an end or purpose, not justified by, and clearly against......
  • 543 N.W.2d 795 (S.D. 1996), 19013, Grode v. Grode
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • February 14, 1996
    ...to try the case; (7) whether written briefs were required; and (8) whether an appeal to this court is involved. Garnos v. Garnos, 376 N.W.2d 571, 575 (S.D.1985) (citations omitted). On an appeal to this court these elements are also considered. Rykhus v. Rykhus, 319 N.W.2d 167, 171 (S.D.198......
  • Request a trial to view additional results