The South Dakota Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in the case of Shevling v. Major, which has implications for military divorce settlements. The court addressed disputes over maintenance payments and military retirement benefits between Jessica Lyn Shevling and Devin Jermaine Major, who were married for nearly 20 years. This ruling is significant as it clarifies how military retirement benefits can be divided in divorce cases and the obligations of both parties under separation agreements.

The case, filed under docket numbers 31196 and 31203, arose after Shevling and Major divorced in February 2021. The couple had signed a separation agreement in July 2020, which included provisions for monthly maintenance payments and a share of Major's military retirement pay. After the divorce, Major failed to adhere to these financial obligations, prompting Shevling to seek legal recourse.

Shevling and Major both represented themselves in court, which complicated the proceedings. The dispute escalated when Major did not pay the agreed-upon maintenance of $1,500 per month and failed to provide Shevling with the 20% share of his military retirement pay as stipulated in their agreement. Shevling sought to hold Major in contempt of court and requested modifications to the divorce decree.

The circuit court ruled that Major could not be held in contempt due to the vagueness of the original court order. It also reduced Shevling's share of Major's military retirement from 20% to 16.1%. Both parties appealed the decision, leading to the Supreme Court's review.

The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled on May 13, 2026, affirming some aspects of the lower court's decision while reversing others. The court stated, "It was the parties’ intent that the Wife was to receive 20 percent of the amount allowed under § 1408, as may be calculated by the Department of Defense." This ruling clarified that Shevling is entitled to 20% of Major's disposable military retirement pay, not the reduced amount determined by the lower court.

The court's opinion, delivered by Justice Gusinsky, emphasized the importance of adhering to the terms of the separation agreement. It noted that the original agreement was clear in its intent, and the lower court's application of a coverture calculation was incorrect. The Supreme Court's ruling reinstates Shevling's entitlement to 20% of Major's retirement pay, which is a significant victory for her.

Additionally, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of maintenance payments. The circuit court had found that Major owed Shevling $5,000 in back support payments, but Shevling argued that the amount should be higher. The Supreme Court agreed that the interest rate applied to the arrears was incorrect and ordered the application of the statutory 10% interest rate instead of the 8% previously used.

The impact of this ruling is substantial for both parties. For Shevling, it means a restoration of her rightful share of Major's military retirement benefits, which can significantly affect her financial stability. For Major, the ruling reinforces the importance of complying with divorce agreements and the potential legal consequences of failing to do so.

This case sets a precedent in South Dakota regarding the division of military retirement benefits in divorce cases, particularly for parties who represent themselves. It highlights the necessity of clear and enforceable agreements in divorce proceedings, especially in complex cases involving military service.

Looking ahead, both parties may consider further legal actions, but the Supreme Court's ruling is final unless appealed to a higher court. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the importance of legal representation in divorce cases, especially when navigating the complexities of military benefits and obligations.