 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Estate of Watson12/10/2003
r made any attempt to contact Calvin over the seven years of his adult life.
. Brian lived with his mother, Joan, for his entire life except for a brief period of vocational schooling. After becoming an adult, Brian financially supported his mother and claimed her as a dependent on his 2000 federal income tax return. Calvin, on the other hand, was unable to produce any evidence Brian ever supported him, financial or otherwise.
. Following the unfortunate accident which claimed Brian's life, a circuit court appointed Joan special administrator of Brian's estate. As special administrator, Joan equally divided the proceeds of a $10,000 wrongful death policy between herself and Calvin. Joan also successfully pursued a wrongful death claim against the driver of the vehicle that struck Brian. After payment of attorney's fees and funeral expenses, only $54,957.81 of the settlement remained to be distributed to Brian's statutory wrongful death beneficiaries. The circuit court found Joan had a reasonable expectation of support from Brian but Calvin did not, and it granted Joan $54,956.81 and Calvin $1. Calvin appeals the circuit court's apportionment of the wrongful death settlement. The sole issue of our review is:
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the "fair and equitable" division of the wrongful death proceeds as between Calvin and Joan.
We affirm.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
. We review the circuit court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. City of Deadwood v. Summit, Inc., 2000 SD 29, , 607 NW2d 22, 25 (citing New Era Mining Co. v. Dakota Placers, Inc., 1999 SD 153, , 603 NW2d 202, 204). Under this standard, we will only reverse when "we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made" after a thorough review of the evidence. Id. We review conclusions of law under the de novo standard without deference to the circuit court. Id.
. We will not reverse a circuit court's division of property "unless it clearly appears the trial court abused its discretion." Divich v. Divich, 2003 SD 73, , 665 NW2d 109, 112 (citing Kanta v. Kanta, 479 NW2d 505, 507 (SD 1991)). "The term 'abuse of discretion' refers to a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence." Id.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the "fair and equitable" division of the wrongful death proceeds as between Calvin and Joan.
. After both Calvin and Joan presented evidence and testified under oath, the circuit court made its decision to award Calvin only $1 out of the wrongful death settlement. Calvin contends this apportionment is inequitable and, therefore, this Court should find that the circuit court abused its discretion in dividing the settlement. Under the facts of this case, however, we believe the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Calvin $1 of the wrongful death settlement.
. Here, the trial court based its division of the settlement on its findings of fact and guiding principles of South Dakota law. According to SDCL 21-5-5 " very action for wrongful death shall be for the exclusive benefit of the wife or husband and children, or if there be neither of them, then of the parents . . . of the person whose death shall be so caused." Thus, both Joan and Calvin were proper beneficiaries according to the statute. Under SDCL 21-5-8, a wrongful death settlement "shall be apportioned among the beneficiaries . . . in such manner as shall be fair and equitable, having reference to the age and condition of such beneficiaries." (e
Page 1 2 3 4 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|