Storm v. Storm, 15307
| Decision Date | 24 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 15307,15307 |
| Citation | Storm v. Storm, 400 N.W.2d 457 (S.D. 1986) |
| Parties | Frances L. STORM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. James E. STORM, Defendant and Appellee. . Considered on Briefs |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Wesley W. Buckmaster of Stephens, Quinn & Buckmaster, Belle Fourche, for plaintiff and appellant; Randall L. Macy of Stephens, Quinn & Buckmaster, Belle Fourche, on brief.
Terry L. Hofer of Bangs, McCullen, Butler, Foye & Simmons, Rapid City, for defendant and appellee.
Frances L. Storm appeals from a decree and judgment granting her a divorce from her husband, James E. Storm.We affirm.
Frances and James were married on August 7, 1978.No children were born of the marriage.At the time of the divorce, both were fifty years old and in reasonably good health.Both parties brought considerable property to the marriage.Frances' assets included $13,000 in cash, a 1974 Maverick, and a house purchased in 1978 for $33,500.James' assets included $87,000 in cash, farm and ranch equipment valued at between $300,000 and $400,000, and two vehicles.The parties agreed to keep their premarital property separate, and any property purchased during the marriage with premarital assets was also to be kept separate.
Soon after the marriage, James and Frances built a new home.James purchased two lots and used approximately $51,000 of his premarital cash to build the house; he also did much of the construction work himself.Frances did not contribute any cash to build the house, but she did assist with drawing plans, painting, sanding, etc.After the couple moved to their new home, Frances was able to rent the house she owned.During the course of the marriage she received $6,712 in rental income, which was deposited in her own savings account.Frances used the rental income and interest income earned during the marriage to purchase silver coins valued at $2,500, a 1976 Chrysler valued at $2,000, and a 1976 Subaru valued at $1,000; she also obtained a $3,500 lien on a mobile home.
After almost seven years of marriage, Frances filed for divorce.The trial court granted her a divorce and divided the property as follows:
Frances James
------------------------------ ------------------------------
--Her house, valued at --The new house, valued at
$33,500 $68,842
--1974 Maverick --1976 Chrysler
--The silver coins --1976 Subaru
--The lien on the mobile home --A pickup
--Miscellaneous other property --Miscellaneous other property
The trial court did not divide the equity in the houses since the agreement to keep their premarital property separate "would include the equity that either party had during the marriage in their separate homes."
On appeal, Frances argues that the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital property.She contends that she should share in the $17,000 equity in the new house and argues that she should receive credit for the 1976 Chrysler and 1976 Subaru since the cars were purchased with her "premarital assets."We disagree.
The trial court has broad discretion in making a division of property, and this court will not set it aside unless it clearly appears that the trial court abused its discretion.Garnos v. Garnos, 376 N.W.2d 571(S.D.1985)....
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Abrams v. Abrams
...party unreasonably increased the time spent on the case.' " Caughron v. Caughron, 418 N.W.2d 791, 794 (S.D.1988) (citing Storm v. Storm, 400 N.W.2d 457, 458 (S.D.1987)). We are presented with a statement of $1,471.70 but "deem the amount excessive in light of the property, short briefing, n......
-
Beermann v. Beermann
..." Abrams v. Abrams, 516 N.W.2d 348, 352 (S.D.1994) (quoting Caughron v. Caughron, 418 N.W.2d 791, 794 (S.D.1988)) (citing Storm v. Storm, 400 N.W.2d 457, 458 (S.D.1987)). Considering these factors in conjunction with this case, we have determined that Kevin shall be responsible for his own ......
-
Osman v. Keating-Osman
...party unreasonably increased the time spent on the case.' " Caughron v. Caughron, 418 N.W.2d 791, 794 (S.D.1988) (quoting Storm v. Storm, 400 N.W.2d 457, 458 (S.D.1987)). We are presented with a statement of $2,321.40. John has significantly more liquid assets and income than Connie; and ou......
-
Jameson v. Jameson
...relative incomes, the liquidity of assets, and whether either party unreasonably increased the time spent on the case. Storm v. Storm, 400 N.W.2d 457, 458 (S.D.1987) (citations omitted). Considering the above, I would award Carolyn attorney fees of 1. For example, the divorce agreement stat......