Tyler v. Tyler
| Citation | 233 N.W.2d 804,89 S.D. 462 |
| Decision Date | 09 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 11460,11460 |
| Parties | Harriet A. TYLER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Donald A. TYLER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Robert D. Hofer, Stephens, Riter, Mayer & Hofer, Pierre, for defendant-appellant.
John H. Zimmer, Zimmer & Richter, Parker, for plaintiff-respondent.
This is a divorce action. The parties were married at Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in 1965 and have since maintained a residence there. No children have been born; however, the appellant has children from a previous marriage. Appellant counterclaimed for a divorce and after hearing the evidence and testimony, the trial court awarded a divorce to both parties on the grounds of extreme cruelty.
The appellant asserts on appeal that his wife was unable to produce corroborating evidence and therefore is not entitled to a divorce. 1 Plaintiff's corroboration--as observed by the trial court--was weak. However, sufficiency of corroboration must be determined upon the facts of each case and necessarily left to the discretion of the trial court. Masek v. Masek, S.D., 228 N.W.2d 334; 24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, § 382. We find no abuse of discretion.
The principal issue was not whether a divorce should have been granted but rather as to the division of property and payment of alimony.
At the time of their marriage in 1965 the plaintiff had a net worth of $24,342.26 consisting mostly of stock. At the time of the divorce she had a net worth of $3,325. Her net worth was dissipated largely through reverses in the stock market. She is in poor health resulting from a heart condition which arose before the marriage but which has deteriorated, so she is probably unemployable. At the time of trial appellant had a net worth of $380,000, which had increased during their marriage. For the period from 1969 through 1972 his annual income averaged $42,000. The trial court awarded plaintiff the stock she owned at the time of her marriage, a net worth of $3,325. In addition thereto, the court awarded her the sum of $50,000 and alimony of $400 per month for the rest of her life unless she remarries, which is to be an obligation of and charge against appellant's estate.
The appellant claims the trial court erred in taking into consideration plaintiff's preexisting health conditions, loss of assets, and increase in appellant's net worth in making a division of the property and awarding alimony.
First of all, the findings of fact and conclusions of law do not establish the trial court necessarily took those matters into consideration in arriving at a decision. They were mentioned along with other facts of the case, but that does not establish them as the reason for the decision.
The principal factors to be considered by a court in making an equitable division of the property are as follows:
Kressly v. Kressly, 77 S.D. 143, 87 N.W.2d 601.
Klinger v. Klinger, 79 S.D. 182, 109 N.W.2d 633.
Considering all those factors in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making the division of property and awarding alimony.
It is further claimed by the appellant that the trial court erred in granting alimony of $400 per month for plaintiff's lifetime unless s...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lodde v. Lodde
...Sec. 15.10 A(1) (1987); 2A W. Nelson, Divorce & Annulment Sec. 17.20 (2d ed. 1961); Annot. 39 A.L.R.2d 1406 (1955). Cf. Tyler v. Tyler, 89 S.D. 462, 233 N.W.2d 804 (1975) (In affirming the trial court's award of alimony for the wife's lifetime, the court rejected the husband's contention th......
-
Ducheneaux v. SECRETARY OF INTERIOR OF US, Civ. No. 85-5161.
...support payments required by the husband, unless expressly provided in the decree, do not survive the death of the husband. Tyler v. Tyler, 233 N.W.2d 804 (S.D.1975). Moreover, the payments in this case were temporary support payments required to be paid prior to a final adjudication of div......
-
Wall v. Wall
...to the accumulation of the property and the faults and circumstances leading up to the divorce. (citations omitted)" Tyler v. Tyler, S.D., 233 N.W.2d 804, 805 (1975). In order to review the distribution of the property in the present case we will apply the factors listed above to the facts ......
-
Ryken v. Ryken, 16331
...wife could have been earning interest on the alimony and property awards if the divorce decree had not been appealed. Tyler v. Tyler, 89 S.D. 462, 233 N.W.2d 804 (1975). ATTORNEY Wife has filed a motion for attorney fees on appeal, accompanied by an itemized statement of costs incurred and ......