Busch v. Busch, 12630
| Decision Date | 17 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 12630,12630 |
| Citation | 298 N.W.2d 95 |
| Parties | Judith G. BUSCH, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Gary A. BUSCH, Defendant and Appellant. . Considered on Briefs |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Robert L. O'Connor, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and appellee.
A. Thomas Pokela of Braithwaite & Cadwell, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellant.
Defendant, Gary A. Busch, appeals from a judgment and decree of divorce ordering him to pay $400 per month child support and to convey all interest in the family home to plaintiff, Judith G. Busch. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
Plaintiff and defendant were married on January 14, 1967. They have two children, ages four and eleven at the time of trial. Both parties are teacher-coaches. At the time of trial, plaintiff and defendant had base salaries of $14,040. In addition, plaintiff and defendant earned comparable additional income by coaching.
During their marriage the parties purchased a home for approximately $21,000. The house, subject to a $16,600 mortgage, is now worth approximately $40,000. Plaintiff was awarded full ownership of the house, subject to the mortgage. Defendant argues that a more equitable disposition is mandated.
Plaintiff and defendant were married eleven years. They had the same earning capacity. Both worked throughout the marriage. Both contributed equally to the purchase of the house. Application of the well-settled principles governing review of a trial court's division of property in a divorce case to these facts indicates that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to award defendant an equitable share of the equity in the house as of the date of trial. #12688, Currier v. Currier, 296 N.W.2d 713 (S.D.1980); #12744, #12745, Hanks v. Hanks, 296 N.W.2d 523 (S.D.1980); Michael v. Michael, 287 N.W.2d 98 (S.D.1980).
Defendant also argues that the $400 child support requirement is excessive. Our review of the record does not convince us that the trial court abused its discretion in setting the amount of child support for defendant's two children. Wipf v. Wipf, 273 N.W.2d 124 (S.D.1978).
Accordingly, that portion of the judgment of the trial court regarding division of the family residence is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. All other portions of the judgment are affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...a gift and that "there was no contribution of any significance by appellant in acquiring the land." Id. at 728. We held in Busch v. Busch, 298 N.W.2d 95 (S.D.1980), that the trial court erred in awarding one of the divorced parties full ownership of the marital home. Both parties had worked......
-
Schumacher v. Schumacher, 13088
...she received a disproportionately large share of the personal property. See Leeper v. Leeper, 301 N.W.2d 154 (S.D.1981), Busch v. Busch, 298 N.W.2d 95 (S.D.1980). The judgment is ...
-
Leeper v. Leeper, 12967
...facts, we fail to see any abuse of discretion in the property division. Hanson v. Hanson, 252 N.W.2d 907 (S.D.1977); see Busch v. Busch, 298 N.W.2d 95 (S.D.1980). The judgment is ...