Havlik v. Havlik, No. 27050.

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtZINTER, Justice.
Citation857 N.W.2d 422
PartiesJulia HAVLIK, individually and representing Havlik Farms, Inc., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. George HAVLIK, Edward Havlik and Brian Havlik, Defendants and Appellants.
Docket NumberNo. 27050.
Decision Date10 December 2014

857 N.W.2d 422

Julia HAVLIK, individually and representing Havlik Farms, Inc., Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
George HAVLIK, Edward Havlik and Brian Havlik, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 27050.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Considered on Briefs Nov. 17, 2014.
Decided Dec. 10, 2014.


857 N.W.2d 423

David J. Larson, Jessica Hegge, Larson Law, PC, Chamberlain, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellee.

Rory King, Bantz, Gosch & Cremer, LLC, Aberdeen, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendants and appellants.

Opinion

857 N.W.2d 424

ZINTER, Justice.

¶ 1.] Julia and George Havlik were married and operated a farm together. Julia filed for a separation, a division of their marital assets, and later sought support. The circuit court divided the parties' property and ordered George to pay Julia monthly spousal support because of a disparity in their social security benefits. George appeals the support award. We reverse.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶ 2.] Julia and George Havlik, who had been married for sixty-five years, operated a family farm. This case began when Julia filed a complaint against George alleging fraud, lack of consideration, mistake of fact, and waste in connection with a number of transactions involving the farm. The two separated, and Julia amended her complaint to also seek a separation and a division of their marital assets. She later sought spousal support.

[¶ 3.] Numerous issues in the case were resolved incrementally over a period of time. The circuit court made an initial property award on February 2, 2009. That award was amended on September 28, 2011. Each party was to receive $504,487.04, and George was to pay Julia a $78,122.16 equalization payment. Each party also received half of the farmland, which their son was to rent from Julia for $48,000 a year.

[¶ 4.] At an April 19, 2011 hearing, the circuit court determined that George should pay Julia $300 per month “to equalize” their social security benefits (George was receiving $1,325 and Julia was receiving $599 per month). There was a delay in filing a conforming order because George's counsel was contemplating an appeal and did not want the time to appeal to start until all property division issues were resolved. The conforming order was signed on September 6, 2011. The order provided that George was to pay Julia “$300.00 per month during her lifetime ... in consideration of the disparity of their social security income and shall be treated as spousal support.”

[¶ 5.] The September 6, 2011 order was not served on George's counsel, and George did not make the monthly payments. Julia died in October 2012. On November 13, 2012, George's counsel sent a letter to Julia's counsel indicating that they “have not yet received [the] Order with Notice of Entry of Judgment entering the [support] amount.” On November 15, 2012, Julia's counsel replied, indicating “[they did] still need to resolve the issue of the amounts due under the support [order]” and that “[he would] try to come up with a number George owe[d] on support yet through Julia's passing.” On January 15, 2013, the order was filed. On January 16, 2013, George's counsel received a copy of the order from Julia's counsel. However, Julia's counsel did not serve notice of entry of the order.

[¶ 6.] On August 5, 2013, Julia's estate (hereafter referred to as Julia) moved to compel George, among other things, to pay the $300 monthly payments plus interest. On December 6, 2013, following a hearing, the circuit court issued a written opinion reaffirming its $300 monthly award. On March 11, 2014, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a conforming “Order Concerning Support[ ]” were entered. On the same day, notice of entry of the March 11, 2014 order was served on George's counsel. On April 10, 2014, George filed a notice of appeal.

[¶ 7.] On appeal, George argues that the circuit court erred in awarding spousal support. Julia argues that George waived his right to appeal because he failed to file a notice of appeal within thirty days of January 16, 2013, the day he received a

[857 N.W.2d 425

copy of the September 6, 2011 order awarding support. If the appeal is timely, Julia argues that the court did not err in ordering support.

Decision

[¶ 8.] Julia first contends that George waived the right to appeal because he failed to file a timely notice of appeal. “An appeal from a judgment or order must be taken within thirty days after the judgment or order shall be signed, attested, filed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Vandyke v. Choi, No. 27740.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • December 14, 2016
    ...began. [888 N.W.2d 566"Alimony (spousal support) is intended to assist in providing necessities." Havlik v. Havlik, 2014 S.D. 84, ¶ 14, 857 N.W.2d 422, 426. Such necessities include housing. Urbaniak v. Urbaniak, 2011 S.D. 83, ¶ 27, 807 N.W.2d 621, 628. It is consistent, then, with the aims......
  • Taylor v. Taylor, #28550
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • May 15, 2019
    ...‘relevant economic circumstances’ " it relied on when making the determination to award alimony. Havlik v. Havlik , 2014 S.D. 84, ¶ 16, 857 N.W.2d 422, 426 ; see also Scherer v. Scherer , 2015 S.D. 32, ¶ 11, 864 N.W.2d 490, 494-95 (requiring the need for alimony to be established on the rec......
  • Vandyke v. Choi, #27740
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • December 14, 2016
    ...before payments began. "Alimony (spousal support) is intended to assist in providing necessities." Havlik v. Havlik, 2014 S.D. 84, ¶ 14, 857 N.W.2d 422, 426. Such necessities include housing. Urbaniak v. Urbaniak, 2011 S.D. 83, ¶ 27, 807 N.W.2d 621, 628. It is consistent, then, with the aim......
  • Martz v. Hills Materials, No. 27022.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • December 10, 2014
    ...were based on his 2003 impairment rating, and an impairment rating evaluation is not the same as an opinion on causation. Finally, [857 N.W.2d 422even if Dr. Blow had reviewed the additional medical information that Martz indicates would have been “helpful,” Dr. Blow testified that it would......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Vandyke v. Choi, No. 27740.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • December 14, 2016
    ...N.W.2d 566"Alimony (spousal support) is intended to assist in providing necessities." Havlik v. Havlik, 2014 S.D. 84, ¶ 14, 857 N.W.2d 422, 426. Such necessities include housing. Urbaniak v. Urbaniak, 2011 S.D. 83, ¶ 27, 807 N.W.2d 621, 628. It is consistent, then, with the aims o......
  • Taylor v. Taylor, #28550
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • May 15, 2019
    ...economic circumstances’ " it relied on when making the determination to award alimony. Havlik v. Havlik , 2014 S.D. 84, ¶ 16, 857 N.W.2d 422, 426 ; see also Scherer v. Scherer , 2015 S.D. 32, ¶ 11, 864 N.W.2d 490, 494-95 (requiring the need for alimony to be established on the record).......
  • Vandyke v. Choi, #27740
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • December 14, 2016
    ...began. "Alimony (spousal support) is intended to assist in providing necessities." Havlik v. Havlik, 2014 S.D. 84, ¶ 14, 857 N.W.2d 422, 426. Such necessities include housing. Urbaniak v. Urbaniak, 2011 S.D. 83, ¶ 27, 807 N.W.2d 621, 628. It is consistent, then, with the aims of a......
  • Martz v. Hills Materials, No. 27022.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • December 10, 2014
    ...were based on his 2003 impairment rating, and an impairment rating evaluation is not the same as an opinion on causation. Finally, [857 N.W.2d 422even if Dr. Blow had reviewed the additional medical information that Martz indicates would have been “helpful,” Dr. Blow testified that it would......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT