holding that medical malpractice structured settlement payments were income and collecting cases from other jurisdictions
How later courts described this case
- holding that medical malpractice structured settlement payments were income and collecting cases from other jurisdictions
- stating that even if the structured settlement payments were not “income” for purposes of calculating a parent’s child support obligation, those payments were assets, and thus, could still be considered
- stating that abuse of discretion “is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, is arbitrary or unreasonable”
- concluding trial court did not abuse its discretion when “the court properly considered the *80 relevant factors in making its custody determination”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SABERS, Justice
(concurring on Issues 1, 2, and 4 and concurring in result on Issue 3).
[¶ 42.] I concur in result on Issue 3 because Travis wholly failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that his structured settlement was income under the child support provisions. As we noted in Peterson, SDCL 25-7-6.3 was intended to be inclusive and to “encompass other, unlisted sources of income.” Peterson, 2000 SD 58 at ¶ 21 , 610 N.W.2d at 72 (citing Hautala v. Hautala, 417 N.W.2d 879, 881 (S.D.1988) (additional citations omitted)).