Bryon Noem (“Bryon”) has answered Kristi Noem’s (“Kristi”) lawsuit for divorce in South Dakota state court. Bryon’s Answer was filed on October 13, 2026 at 11:49 AM in the Circuit Court of Hamlin County.
Bryon’s Answer simplifies aspects of the litigation, but it also highlights areas which remain to be resolved. Here is what we know:
Grounds for Divorce (removed from contention)
Bryon agrees with Kristi that the marriage should be dissolved on the ground of “irreconcilable differences.” This is South Dakota’s “no fault” ground for divorce and it is available where both parties agree. By pursuing a divorce on the ground of “irreconcilable differences,” it will not be necessary for either Kristi or Bryon to prove one of the traditional “fault grounds” (which include adultery, extreme cruelty, willful desertion, willful neglect, habitual intemperance and conviction of a felony.)
Required Statements Agreed Upon
Bryon also agrees with necessary statements made by Kristi, statements required to obtain a divorce. These include allegations regarding date of marriage, residency of the parties, jurisdiction and venue. Kristi alleged, and Bryon agrees, that both parties are residents of Castlewood, Hamlin County, South Dakota.
Division of Property/Debt Apportionment (Yet to be determined)
Both Kristi and Bryon are requesting the Court to make “a fair and equitable division of the marital assets (real and personal property) and debts.” It is apparent that Kristi and Bryon have not reached an agreement in regard to property and debts, but an agreement may yet be reached.
Spousal Support (Alimony) (Yet to be determined)
In Kristi’s Complaint for Divorce, she did not specifically assert a claim for support (alimony) against Bryon, but stated she “reserves the right to assert, and for preservation purposes, does assert, a claim of support” which is “dependent upon property division.” A correct interpretation of this position would be that if Kristi is not satisfied with how property division is attained, she can and will seek alimony.
Bryon’s Answer denies that Kristi is entitled to spousal support. Furthermore, he mirrors Kristi’s claim, stating, “”dependent upon a property division, Defendant reserves the right to assert and for preservation purposes does assert a claim of support.”Again, a correct interpretation of this position would be that if Bryon is not satisfied with how property division is attained, he can and will seek alimony.
Although one typically sees a husband ordered to pay alimony to a wife, South Dakota law allows the Court to order a wife to pay alimony to the husband. (See the South Dakota Supreme Court decision in Osdoba v. Kelley-Osdoba, 2018 S.D. 43.)
Kristi is represented by Michael K. Sabers of Loos, Sabers and Smith LLP law firm of Rapid City. Bryonis represented by Timothy G. Bottum of Morgan Theeler LLP law firm in Mitchell, South Dakota.
A copy of Bryon’s Answer may be obtained by sending an e-mail request to rogermbaron@gmail.com .
