Steffens v. Peterson, 17881

Decision Date18 November 1992
Docket NumberNo. 17881,17881
Citation503 N.W.2d 254
PartiesAgnes S. STEFFENS, formerly Agnes S. Peterson, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Kenneth B. PETERSON, Defendant and Appellee. . Considered on Briefs
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

Karen L. Crew, Crew & Crew, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and appellant.

Richard A. Johnson, Strange, Farrell, Johnson & Casey, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellee.

AMUNDSON, Justice.

Agnes S. Steffens (Agnes) appeals from an order and judgment terminating her former husband's alimony obligation retroactively to the date of her remarriage, reducing his child support obligation, and allowing him to deduct $250.00 per month from his child support obligation for thirty months to recover alimony payments made after Agnes' remarriage. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

FACTS

Kenneth B. Peterson (Kenneth) and Agnes were married on January 16, 1971 and divorced on May 18, 1989. During the course of their marriage, Kenneth and Agnes had five children. Four of the children were minors at the time of the divorce.

Kenneth and Agnes married while they were both juniors in high school, and both graduated the following year. Thereafter, Kenneth obtained both a college and a medical school education, completing his M.D. degree in 1980. Following graduation from medical school, Kenneth served six years as a doctor in the Army Medical Corps and then joined the Brown Clinic in Watertown, South Dakota, as a family practice doctor. Agnes did not pursue any education or training beyond her high school degree since she was performing the work of a mother and homemaker.

Both prior and subsequent to the filing of the divorce action, Kenneth and Agnes discussed the issues of the divorce. The discussions resulted in a Property and Marital Settlement Agreement (Agreement) which both parties signed and the trial court incorporated into the judgment and decree of divorce. The Agreement provided for division of personal property and debts, disposition of the marital home, child support and custody, and alimony payments.

Kenneth and Agnes agreed to joint legal custody of the four children who were minors at the time of the divorce. Agnes assumed physical custody of the two minor daughters, Abigail and Rebekka; Kenneth assumed physical custody of the two minor sons, Anders and Bradley. Abigail has since reached the age of majority.

Pursuant to the Agreement, Kenneth was required to pay Agnes $500.00 per month per child, not to exceed the sum of $1,000.00 per month, for the support and maintenance of the parties' minor children residing with Agnes from April 1, 1989 until and including June 1, 1991. Thereafter, from July 1, 1991 until and including June 1, 2000, Kenneth was required to pay $650.00 per month for the support and maintenance of Rebekka. Agnes was not required to contribute for the support of the two children in Kenneth's custody. Neither Kenneth nor Agnes relied on the South Dakota support guidelines in establishing the agreed upon support levels. Kenneth has remained current in his support payments to Agnes.

The Agreement also required Kenneth to pay alimony to Agnes. The payment of alimony as set out in Paragraph 16 of the Agreement reads:

16. Defendant agrees and shall pay to Plaintiff [for full and complete distribution and settlement of all equity assets and] as rehabilitation alimony, the sum of Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($750.00) per month, commencing on the 1st day of April, 1989, and on the first day of each month thereafter up through and including June 1, 1991; the sum of Six Hundred Dollars ($600.00) per month commencing on the 1st day of July, 1991 and on the 1st day of each month thereafter up through and including June 1, 1994; and thereafter, Defendant agrees to pay to Plaintiff, as rehabilitation alimony only, the sum of Three Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($350.00) per month, commencing July 1, 1994, and on the first day of each month thereafter up through and including June 1, 2000. (Bracketed portion crossed out and initialed by the parties).

As noted, the parties crossed out and initialed the portion that reads, "for full and complete distribution and settlement of all equity assets and." The change was acknowledged by the parties on May 17, 1989, the day before the judgment and decree of divorce was issued.

Kenneth paid Agnes $750.00 per month in alimony through June 1, 1991, as required by the Agreement. Thereafter, pursuant to the Agreement, Kenneth paid Agnes $600.00 per month until November, 1991 when, without the benefit of an appropriate court order, he discontinued the payments as a result of Agnes' remarriage in December, 1990. All alimony payments made by Kenneth were treated as such by both Kenneth and Agnes on their tax returns.

On August 5, 1991, Kenneth, by affidavit and application for an order to show cause, sought termination of his alimony obligation and a reduction in his child support obligation. The trial court issued an order to show cause and a show cause hearing was held on November 12, 1991. The trial court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law and an order and judgment on January 29, 1992. The order and judgement granted Kenneth's request to terminate alimony retroactively to the date of Agnes' remarriage, established Kenneth's child support obligation at $751.60 per month, and allowed Kenneth to reduce his monthly child support payments by $250.00 per month for thirty months in order to recover his overpayment of alimony. Agnes appeals.

ISSUES

1) Whether Kenneth B. Peterson's child support obligation should be reduced to $751.60 per month?

2) Whether Kenneth B. Peterson's alimony obligation is subject to termination?

3) Whether Kenneth B. Peterson's alimony obligation should be determined retroactively to the date of Agnes S. Steffens' remarriage?

4) Whether Kenneth B. Peterson should be allowed to reduce his child support payments by $250.00 per month for 30 months to recover overpayment of alimony as determined by the court?

5) Whether Agnes S. Steffens is entitled to recover her attorney fees and expenses in the trial court from Kenneth B. Peterson?

ANALYSIS

We will not disturb an award of alimony or child support, or a division of property, unless the trial court clearly abused its discretion. Peterson v. Peterson, 434 N.W.2d 732, 734 (S.D.1989). We do not determine whether we would have made an original like ruling, but whether " 'a judicial mind, in view of the law and the circumstances of the particular case, could reasonably have reached such a conclusion.' " Id. (quoting Havens v. Henning, 418 N.W.2d 311, 312 (S.D.1988)). We apply these standards in our analysis of the following issues.

1. Reduction of Child Support Award

Agnes first alleges that the trial court incorrectly calculated Kenneth's net monthly income thereby making his monthly child support obligation too small. However, while Agnes shows the court her own calculations of Kenneth's net monthly income, she fails to in any way explain why the trial court's calculations are in error.

Both Agnes and the trial court begin their calculations of Kenneth's net monthly income with the same gross monthly figure of $9,939.08. However, the trial court deducts $896.10 for Social Security/Medicare while Agnes deducts only $599.89. Likewise, the trial court deducts $3,068.78 for federal income tax, whereas Agnes deducts only $2,707.10. While Agnes furnishes computations for her differing figures and states that the trial court's "figures are incorrect," she fails to explain why or how the trial court's calculations are in error. We are not in a position to recalculate Kenneth's net monthly income in an effort to explain the difference between Agnes' and the court's figures and decline to do so. Because Agnes does not demonstrate why the trial court's calculations are in error, we are not left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." In re Proceedings for Deposit in Court, 417 N.W.2d 187, 188 (S.D.1987). We thus affirm the trial court's findings as to Kenneth's net monthly income.

Likewise, we do not find, nor does Agnes argue, that the trial court misapplied the child support guidelines once Kenneth's net monthly income was determined. The trial court determined Kenneth's net monthly income to be $5,974.20 and Agnes' to be $843.40. The combined monthly incomes total $6,817.60 and exceed the maximum amount listed on the child support obligation schedule found at SDCL 25-7- 6.2. Using an acceptable method of calculating child support, the trial court found the parties' income to be 170% of the top income ($4000.00) listed on the support guideline table. Based on that extrapolation, the trial court made the following calculations:

                Father's net monthly income  $  5,974.20  (88%)
                Mother's net monthly income  $    843.40  (12%)
                Total net monthly income     $  6,817.60
                Monthly support obligation for one child
                        (170% of $637) = $1,082.90
                Monthly support obligation for two children
                        (170% of $987) = $1,677.90
                Mother's obligation for two children residing with Father
                        (12% of $1,677.90) = $  201.35
                Father's obligation for one child residing with Mother
                        (88% of $1,082.90) = $  952.95
                Father's net obligation after reducing for Mother's obligation
                        ($952.95 - $201.35) = $  751.60
                ----------
                

This court will overturn a trial court's findings of fact only when they are clearly erroneous. Id. After reviewing the trial court's calculations, we are not "left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Id. We therefore affirm the trial court's determination of $751.60 as the appropriate amount of child support.

2. Termination of Alimony for Remarriage

Agnes contends that the trial court erred in terminating her alimony because the payments represent a gross alimony payment which was payable in installments or, if not that, the alimony awarded was part and parcel of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Grode v. Grode
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • October 16, 1995
    ...376 N.W.2d at 575. We will not overturn the trial court's award of attorney fees absent an abuse of discretion. Steffens v. Peterson, 503 N.W.2d 254, 260 (S.D.1993). The trial court awarded $5,000 in attorney fees to be paid over time together with the property division. The record reflects......
  • Keller v. O'Brien
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • August 21, 1997
    ...judicial holding had accepted that continuation of alimony after remarriage was "extremely rare and exceptional;" Steffens v. Peterson, 503 N.W.2d 254, 258-259 (S.D.1993) (parties divorced and wife remarried after judicial rule announced that remarriage terminated alimony absent "extraordin......
  • Keller v. O'Brien
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • July 24, 1995
    ...of divorce that expressly provides for continuation of sustenance alimony after recipient spouse remarries); Steffens v. Peterson, 503 N.W.2d 254, 258 (S.D.1993) (remarriage does not automatically terminate alimony, but places burden of proving the existence of extraordinary circumstances w......
  • Pellegrin v. Pellegrin, 20007
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • December 2, 1997
    ...the law and the circumstances of the particular case, could reasonably have reached such a conclusion.' " Id. (citing Steffens v. Peterson, 503 N.W.2d 254, 257 (S.D.1993)). DECISION ¶11 I. Norma's Claim of Extreme Mental ¶12 As a preliminary matter, we note that Norma's brief on this issue ......
  • 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