Moe v. Moe

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtMILLER
Citation496 N.W.2d 593
PartiesZelma M. MOE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Wallace E. MOE, Defendant and Appellee. 17627. . Considered on Briefs on
Decision Date12 February 1992

Page 593

496 N.W.2d 593
Zelma M. MOE, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Wallace E. MOE, Defendant and Appellee.
17627.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Considered on Briefs on Feb. 12, 1992.
Reassigned Dec. 10, 1992.
Decided Feb. 24, 1993.

Richard A. Johnson of Strange, Farrell, Johnson and Casey, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and appellant.

Clair R. Gerry of Stuart and Gerry, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellee.

Page 594

MILLER, Chief Justice (on reassignment).

Zelma M. Moe (Mother) appeals from an order deeming all judgments she held against Wallace E. Moe (Father) satisfied. We affirm.

FACTS

Mother and Father's 1980 judgment and decree of divorce incorporated their stipulation and agreement giving Mother custody of their three children. Father agreed to pay $750 per month in child support.

On February 18, 1981, the parties filed their court-approved stipulation and agreement which modified the judgment and decree of divorce. It provided that Father owed Mother $4,525 in accumulated child support. Father agreed that this amount "shall be an additional equity of [Mother] in the marital home" which she would receive from the proceeds of the sale of the home. Regular child support payments would begin again in April 1981 in accordance with the original decree of divorce.

The judgment and decree of divorce was further modified in September 1981. Father received custody of his eldest son. His child support obligation for the remaining two children was reduced to $600 until his middle son turned 18. Then he was to pay $450 per month until his daughter reached 18.

In 1987 Father petitioned to modify his child support obligation. After an administrative hearing and entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law the hearing examiner, in September 1987, ordered Father to pay $110 cash per month to support their daughter with the balance of $340 per month to be taken from his equity in the marital home. See Taylor v. Ellenbecker, 471 N.W.2d 587 (S.D.1991).

In November 1990 Mother filed an affidavit seeking, among other things, judgment against Father for $9,217.98 in child support arrears. On January 28, 1991, the trial court entered an order which said, in part

Defendant's [Father] equity in the residence is $12,477.43 and he owes the sum of $13,600.00 in child support, leaving a deficiency of $1,122.57. Said deficiency shall be paid in five equal monthly installments of $224.50 together with the current child support of $110.00 per month, making total payments of support for the first five months of 1991 in the amount of $334.50 per month.

2. Defendant shall transfer his interest in the residence to Plaintiff [Mother], subject to the mortgage thereon.

On February 14, 1991, Mother acknowledged partial satisfaction of judgment for $13,600 "child support arrears from September 1, 1987 through December 30, 1990."

On June 5, 1991, Father received an execution to satisfy the February 1981 judgment of $4,525. He then filed an affidavit requesting an order directing Mother to file a satisfaction of all judgments, claiming the January 28, 1991 order completely resolved the child support arrearage issue.

The trial court agreed. It found the January 28, 1991 order completely determined the amount of child support father owed including "all prior judgements, [sic] accruals, deficiency remaining upon sale of the house and deductions." By its July 19, 1991 order it ordered all judgments held by Mother against Father were satisfied of record and voided the outstanding execution for levy and garnishment. This July 19 order is before us on appeal.

ISSUE

Father contends that the trial court was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • People ex rel. L.S., No. 23560.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • August 16, 2006
    ...(3) the parties are the same; and (4) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the prior proceeding. Moe v. Moe, 496 N.W.2d 593, 595 (S.D.1993) (citation omitted). In examining whether these elements are present, a court should construe the doctrine liberally, unrestr......
  • Ramos v. Weber, No. 21141.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • August 16, 2000
    ...twice to the same cause of action, since public policy is best served when litigation has a finality.'" Id. (quoting Moe v. Moe, 496 N.W.2d 593, 595 (S.D.1993)). This due process challenge could have been raised in the direct appeal along with the Eighth Amendment challenge. Under the ......
  • Krebs v. Weber, No. 20961
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • March 29, 2000
    ...twice to the same cause of action, since public policy is best served when litigation has a finality.'" Id. (quoting Moe v. Moe, 496 N.W.2d 593, 595 [¶ 27.] In determining whether res judicata applies, this court considers, among other factors, whether there was a final judgment on the......
  • SDDS, Inc., In re, No. 96-2705
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 3, 1996
    ...SDDS VI bars the Defendants from relitigating these settled issues in subsequent litigation in the state courts. See, e.g., Moe v. Moe, 496 N.W.2d 593, 595 [I]f the prior final judgment or order had been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, it is conclusive as to all rights, quest......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • People ex rel. L.S., No. 23560.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • August 16, 2006
    ...(3) the parties are the same; and (4) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the prior proceeding. Moe v. Moe, 496 N.W.2d 593, 595 (S.D.1993) (citation omitted). In examining whether these elements are present, a court should construe the doctrine liberally, unrestr......
  • Ramos v. Weber, No. 21141.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • August 16, 2000
    ...twice to the same cause of action, since public policy is best served when litigation has a finality.'" Id. (quoting Moe v. Moe, 496 N.W.2d 593, 595 (S.D.1993)). This due process challenge could have been raised in the direct appeal along with the Eighth Amendment challenge. Under the ......
  • Krebs v. Weber, No. 20961
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • March 29, 2000
    ...twice to the same cause of action, since public policy is best served when litigation has a finality.'" Id. (quoting Moe v. Moe, 496 N.W.2d 593, 595 [¶ 27.] In determining whether res judicata applies, this court considers, among other factors, whether there was a final judgment on the......
  • SDDS, Inc., In re, No. 96-2705
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 3, 1996
    ...SDDS VI bars the Defendants from relitigating these settled issues in subsequent litigation in the state courts. See, e.g., Moe v. Moe, 496 N.W.2d 593, 595 [I]f the prior final judgment or order had been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, it is conclusive as to all rights, quest......
  • 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