# Arneson v. Arneson

> South Dakota Supreme Court · October 15, 2003 · 670 N.W.2d 904

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9515086

## Case

- **Full name:** Travis L. ARNESON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Teresa E. ARNESON, Defendant and Appellee
- **Court:** South Dakota Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 15, 2003
- **Citations:** 670 N.W.2d 904; 2003 SD 125; 2003 S.D. LEXIS 155
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sabers
- **Judges:** Konenkamp, Gilbertson, Zinter, Meierhenry, Sabers
- **Cited by:** 61 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9515086

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- concluding circuit court did not abuse its discretion when "the court properly considered the relevant factors in making its custody determination"

## Opinion text

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)).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9515086. Public record. Not legal advice.