Weber v. Weber

999 N.W.2d 230

2023 S.D. 64

Donita K. WEBER, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.Ivan R. WEBER, Defendant and Appellant.

#30253

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS

NOVEMBER 7, 2023

OPINION FILED December 6, 2023

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DAVISON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA, THE HONORABLE PATRICK T. SMITH, Judge

DAVA A. WERMERS, Mitchell, South Dakota, Attorney for defendant and appellant.

ROSE ANN WENDELL, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorney for plaintiff and appellee.

JENSEN, Chief Justice

[¶1.] Ivan and Donita Weber were married in 2019 and divorced less than four years later. Prior to marrying Ivan, Donita owned farmland having a substantial value. During the marriage, the parties co-mingled and jointly titled most of their assets, including the farmland. Ivan and Donita worked on and made improvements to the farm before selling it and most of the accompanying assets for roughly $2.5 million. Donita filed for divorce in May 2022. At the conclusion of the divorce trial, the circuit court treated most of the parties’ property as marital but awarded Donita a much larger share. The circuit court did not order or discuss either party’s need for spousal support because neither party sought it. Ivan appeals arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion in dividing the marital assets and in failing to award him spousal support. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

[¶2.] Donita and Ivan Weber met in October 2016, after Donita’s son invited Ivan to hunt on their family farm. At the time, Donita lived on the farm in Hyde County and was recently widowed after her first husband, Elroy, had died from cancer. Ivan lived in Rapid City and worked as a welder and truck driver. Ivan was married but divorced in 2018.

[¶3.] Donita and Ivan began dating in 2018. Shortly thereafter, Ivan moved to Donita’s farm in Hyde County. They were married on February 12, 2019. Prior to their marriage, Ivan owned approximately $90,000 in assets including a mobile home and a small welding shop in Meade County. The mobile home and welding shop were sold and converted into cash shortly before Ivan and Donita married. Donita owned considerable assets before the marriage, including her family farm estimated to be worth nearly $2 million.

[¶4.] Donita testified that she worked on the farm daily and assisted Ivan while he was learning the operations of the farming business. Prior to their marriage, Donita built a new house on the farm which became the couple’s main residence. Donita also brought most of the machinery, property, and cattle into the marriage.

[¶5.] Ivan also worked on the family farm during the marriage. His labors included working cattle, moving bales, and building a 50x80 foot shop. He replaced flooring, installed a sump pump, and completed landscaping projects on the main residence. He also updated an old house on the farm by installing a water heater, sump pump, and added new exterior steps. In addition, he made several repairs to a barn located on the farm and continued his welding business. The welding business made minimal income during the marriage.

[¶6.] In addition to their farming activities, Donita and Ivan bought and sold cattle, and produced calves each year from a herd of stock cattle. Over the course of their marriage, they sold 272 head of cattle for a total of $276,919.43 and deposited most of the receipts from these sales into the couple’s joint banking and investment accounts. The remaining funds were used to purchase a motorhome.¹

[¶7.] Donita and Ivan titled most of their assets jointly, including several bank accounts and the family farm. However, Donita kept two quarters of land that she inherited from her father in her own name. Ivan did not contribute to this property, and it was kept separate throughout the entirety of their marriage.

[¶8.] Although Donita had not planned to sell the family farm, the couple began discussing the option of selling farm assets to set them up for an early retirement. Ivan and Donita initially sold most of their farm-related personal property at auction. The proceeds from the auction totaled $327,139. They subsequently held a land auction, selling all the jointly owned real property, which they held in a revocable trust. The net proceeds from the land auction totaled $2,222,581.25. The proceeds from both auctions were deposited into jointly held bank accounts. As a result of the auction sales, Ivan and Donita incurred a capital gains tax liability of approximately $200,000.

[¶9.] After the sale of their assets, Donita and Ivan began traveling. They also purchased real property in Mitchell for $130,000 and a home and a double-wide trailer in Watertown. Ivan and Donita stipulated that the value of the home and double-wide trailer in Watertown was $320,000. The parties also retained 40 acres of land in Hyde County.

[¶10.] Donita began expressing concerns about Ivan’s spending habits. Ivan also conveyed disapproval to Donita when she made two loans to her children which totaled $46,000. Due to their disagreements, along with an emerging rift between Ivan and Donita’s children, Donita and Ivan separated in May 2022.

[¶11.] After their separation, Donita removed funds from their jointly held bank accounts and transferred the funds into accounts held solely in her name. She also filed for divorce, claiming irreconcilable differences. During the pendency of their divorce proceedings, the circuit court ordered Donita to pay Ivan $100,000 as an interim property division settlement, subject to further reallocation at the resolution of the case.²

[¶12.] At the time of trial, Donita was 57 years old and Ivan was 55. Neither party was working, and the court found both to be in relatively good health. However, the court noted that Ivan had recently undergone multiple surgeries to address pain in his elbows and knee. Ivan also testified that the day before trial he fell and tore a tendon in his knee and required urgent medical care. The extent of this injury, and whether it might impact his future employability, was unknown. Ivan testified that he expected to be able to return to work as a truck driver or welder at some point. He also testified that he planned to develop the Mitchell property into retail stores and storage buildings. Donita testified that once the divorce was finalized, she intended to open a retail store in Watertown.

[¶13.] Following the trial, the circuit court issued a memorandum decision, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a judgment and decree of divorce on December 29, 2022. The court treated all the assets owned by the parties as marital property, except for the farmland Donita inherited from her father. The court divided the marital property so that Donita received most of the assets and all the parties’ debt. The total assets Donita received were valued at $2,326,771, less the debt of $240,000. This debt included the total capital gains tax liability of $200,000. Ivan received assets with a value of $391,856.³ The circuit court also ordered Donita to make an equalization payment of $300,000 to Ivan.

[¶14.] Ivan appeals and raises the following issues:

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in its division of property.

2. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in declining to award Ivan spousal support.

Standard of Review

[1–3] [¶15.] This Court reviews a circuit court’s determinations of the division of property and spousal support under an abuse of discretion standard. Taylor v. Taylor, 2019 S.D. 27, ¶ 4, 928 N.W.2d 458, 465 (quoting Hill v. Hill, 2009 S.D. 18, ¶ 5, 763 N.W.2d 818, 822). "Abuse of discretion refers to a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence." Id. (quoting Godfrey v. Godfrey, 2005 S.D. 101, ¶ 11, 705 N.W.2d 77, 80). "An abuse of discretion ‘is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.’" Id. (quoting Thurman v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc’y, 2013 S.D. 63, ¶ 11, 836 N.W.2d 611, 616).

Analysis

1. Division of property.

[4–8] [¶16.] "South Dakota is an ‘all property state,’ meaning all property of the ‘divorcing parties is subject to equitable division by the circuit court, regardless of title or origin.’" Ahrendt v. Chamberlain, 2018 S.D. 31, ¶ 10, 910 N.W.2d 913, 918 (quoting Halbersma v. Halbersma, 2009 S.D. 98, ¶ 9, 775 N.W.2d 210, 214). "Before dividing property, the court must classify it as marital or nonmarital." Id. ¶ 8. (citing Nickles v. Nickles, 2015 S.D. 40, ¶ 32, 865 N.W.2d 142, 153). "The court should consider the following factors when classifying and dividing property: (1) the duration of the marriage; (2) the value of the property owned by the parties; (3) the ages of the parties; (4) the health of the parties; (5) the competency of the parties to earn a living; (6) the contribution of each party to the accumulation of the property; and (7) the income-producing capacity of the parties’ assets." Dunham v. Sabers, 2022 S.D. 65, ¶ 40, 981 N.W.2d 620, 637 (quoting Ahrendt, 2018 S.D. 31, ¶ 10, 910 N.W.2d at 918). A circuit court has broad discretion in classifying the property; however, "[o]nly where one spouse has made no or de minimis contributions to the acquisition or maintenance of an item of property and has no need for support[ ] should a court set it aside as [nonmarital] property." Ahrendt, 2018 S.D. 31, ¶ 10, 910 N.W.2d at 918 (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Anderson v. Anderson, 2015 S.D. 28, ¶ 6, 864 N.W.2d 10, 14).

[9] [¶17.] "When a divorce is granted, the courts may make an equitable division of the property belonging to either or both, whether the title to such property is in the name of the husband or the wife."

SDCL 25-4-44. "In making such division of the property, the court shall have regard for equity and the circumstances of the parties." Id. "A trial court’s...