Donahue v. Getman
South Dakota Supreme Court
432 N.W.2d 281 (1988)
- Written by Robert Schefter, JD
Facts
Virginia Getman Donahue (plaintiff) and Richard Getman (defendant) were divorced in 1982, and Richard was awarded physical custody of their three children. Both Virginia and Richard remarried, and Richard’s new spouse had children from a prior marriage. In 1986, the trial court awarded Virginia sole custody of the three children, but denied her request for child support, finding that Richard did not have the means or ability to make payments. Shortly thereafter, Virginia petitioned the trial court for child support under statutory guidelines, because Richard had monthly income in the amount of $1,405.33 from worker’s compensation and social security disability benefits. Richard had a severe degenerative condition of the spine that left him totally disabled, and his new wife could not work, because she was his full-time caretaker. Richard’s stepchildren also had medical conditions that would require surgery and result in significant medical bills. Although the child support guidelines called for Richard to pay between $539 and $578 per month based on his income, the trial court awarded Virginia only $120 per month, based on Richard’s disability, medical condition, and expenses, as well as the medical conditions and future expenses of his stepchildren. Virginia appealed and argued that the trial court abused its discretion by deviating from the guidelines without making specific findings on all of the factors required for deviation.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miller, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.