Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Wiseman v. Wiseman

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 22, 2015No. 27060Published

1ConcurrenceZinter, Justice

[¶ 16.] Today’s Court relies on Heumiller’s interpretation of SDCL 25-7-7.3 as it was in 2012, the statute prohibiting retroactive modification of “past due support payments.” 2012 S.D. 68, ¶¶8-13, 821 N.W.2d 847, 850-52 (emphasis added). I cannot join today’s opinion because Heumiller judicially substituted the words “past due support payments” in SDCL 25-7-7.3 (2004) with the words “accrued obligations.” See Heumiller, 2012 S.D. 68, ¶ 24, 821 N.W.2d at 853 (Zinter, J., concurring in result).

[¶ 17.] SDCL 25-7-7.3 (2004) prohibited the retroactive modification of certain “past due support…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Heumiller v. HeumillerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API