ROBINSON vs. ROBINSON
365 S.C. 583, 619 S.E.2d 425 (S.C. 2005)

Overview:       Opposing party’s appeal dismissed as untimely following husband filing second post-trial motion which did not stay or toll the time to file notice of appeal.

WOOTEN vs. WOOTEN
354 S.C. 242, 580 S.E.2d 765 (Ct. App.2003)
356 S.C. 473, 589 S.E.2d 769 (Ct. App. 2003)
358 S.C. 54, 594 S.E.2d 854, (Ct. App. 2003)
364 S.C. 532, 615 S.E.2d 98 (S.C. 2005)

Overview:       Award of former marital residence to wife was not an abuse of discretion. Wife's emotional attachment to home was properly considered as a factor in awarding it to her.  Credit card debt incurred by wife after the commencement of the case was not marital property.  Family Court properly denied award of life insurance on husband’s life to secure alimony award to wife.

WYNN vs. WYNN
360 S.C. 117, 600 S.E.2d 71 (Ct. App. 2004)

Overview:       Family Court properly valued husband’s interest in business. Credit card debt incurred during marriage, in part by wife, was marital.  Award of $30,000.00 in attorney’s fees to wife affirmed.

DAVIS vs. DAVIS
356 S.C. 132, 588 S.E.2d 102 (S.C. 2003)

Overview:       Custody relocation case.  Family Court properly awarded custody to father who intended to remain in town where the parties and their child lived during the marriage.

HARDEE vs. HARDEE
348 S.C. 84, 558 S.E.2d 264 (Ct. App. 2001)
355 S.C. 382, 585 S.E.2d 501 (S.C. 2003)

Overview:       Prenuptial agreement did not bar wife from receiving an equitable division of the property acquired during the parties' marriage and prenuptial agreement provisions which waived alimony and attorney fees were enforceable.

THOMAS vs. THOMAS
346 S.C. 20, 550 S.E.2d 580 (Ct. App. 2001)
353 S.C. 523, 579 S.E.2d 310 (S.C. 2003)

Overview:       Equal division of $9,000,000.00 lottery winnings was not an abuse of discretion.

SCOTT vs. SCOTT
354 S.C. 118, 579 S.E.2d 620 (S.C. 2003)

Overview:       Award of joint custody of seven year old child with equal time of physical custody was not an abuse of discretion. Restriction against “having contact with a member of the opposite sex not related by blood or marriage in the presence of either child from the hours of 10:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m.” was overly broad and unreasonable as, carried to its logical extreme, it would prevent the child from entertaining her own friends at his father's home.

FIELDS vs. FIELDS
342 S.C. 182, 536 S.E.2d 684 (Ct. App. 2000)

Overview:       The Family Court properly valued closely held stocks as of the date of the divorce, including appreciation in value during the pendency of the case.  The Family Court properly determined that certain closely held stock had a greater value if owned by the wife where the wife’s father was the majority shareholder and had the ability to financially penalize and “squeeze out” the husband if the stock was awarded to the husband.

HENGGELER vs. HANSON
333 S.C. 598, 510 S.E.2d 722 (Ct. App. 1998)

Overview:       Custody relocation case.  Mother was permitted to move and relocate the parties’ children to Florida.

McELVEEN vs. McELVEEN
332 S.C. 583, 506 S.E.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1998)

Overview:       Family Court properly determined that wife had not committed adultery.  Award of $11,000 per month in alimony to wife was determined to be excessive and reduced to $7,500 per month.  Stock purchase agreement held to be the best method for valuing the husband’s interest in his medical practice.

THORNTON vs. THORNTON
328 S.C. 96, 492 S.E.2d 86 (S.C. 1997)

Overview:       Family Court had no authority to transfer title to property to wife to secure future alimony and child support payments.  Family Court order had the effect of creating a lien against the property which the wife may foreclose, following execution procedures required by law, to satisfy arrearages.  Family Court properly increased husband’s alimony payments to wife.  Family Court properly held husband in contempt and sentenced him to jail in light of husband's unwillingness to comply with the terms of the divorce decree fixing his alimony and child support obligations.

EBERT vs. EBERT
320 S.C. 331, 465 S.E.2d 121 (Ct. App. 1995)

Overview:       Family court properly found the award of the marital home and the $4,000 monthly payments were in the nature of a property division, not alimony subject to termination on wife’s remarriage. 

WATSON vs. WATSON
319 S.C. 92, 460 S.E.2d 394 (S.C. 1995)

Overview:       Public policy permits a party to remain in the home and institute divorce litigation premised on fault grounds other than desertion.

HUNT vs. HUNT
311 S.C. 355, 428 S.E.2d 899 (Ct. App. 1993)

Overview:       Wife was entitled to earnings on her share of the husband’s pension from the date of the divorce decree.

WILLIAMSON vs. WILLIAMSON
311 S.C. 47, 426 S.E.2d 758 (S.C. 1993)

Overview:       Family Court properly denied wife a current award of alimony but committed error in failing to provide for a reservation of the right to award alimony in the future where the wife had epilepsy and her condition may deteriorate in the future when she cannot work.


PETERSON vs. SMITH
307 S.C. 418, 415 S.E.2d 431 (Ct. App. 1992)

Overview:       The Family Court properly required a father to pay child support for his 20 year old mentally retarded daughter.  The South Carolina Child Support Guidelines apply when awarding child support for a disabled child.

GLASSCOCK vs. GLASSCOCK
304 S.C. 158, 403 S.E.2d 313 (S.C. 1991)

Overview:       Established and defined standards governing awards of attorney’s fee in the Family Court cases.

HENDERSON vs. HENDERSON
298 S.C. 190, 379 S.E.2d 125 (S.C. 1989)

Overview:       Case involving construction and enforcement of a court approved and adopted Separation Agreement.  Family Court properly required husband to pay support required by Separation Agreement and denied modification, notwithstanding husband’s heart attack, where husband’s income including disability payments had increased since the time of the Separation Agreement.

THOMPSON vs. BALLENTINE
298 S.C. 289, 379 S.E.2d 896 (S.C. 1989)

Overview:       Family Court lacked jurisdiction to re-open equitable division award in parties’ property settlement agreement made part of a Family Court Order or award the husband money damages.

BOLICK vs. BOLICK
297 S.C. 312, 376 S.E.2d 785 (Ct. App. 1989)

Overview:       Family Court ruling awarding the parties joint custody reversed.

RATCHFORD vs. RATCHFORD
295 S.C. 297, 368 S.E.2d 214 (Ct. App. 1988)

Overview:       Family Court Order holding husband in contempt for non-payment of alimony and child support reversed for lack of jurisdiction where separation agreement requiring payments was incorporated but not merged into the Family Court Decree [Decree predates the Supreme Court's  decision in Moseley v. Mosier, 279 S.C. 348, 306 S.E.2d 624 (1983) – see below]

GOLDEN vs. GALLARDO
295 S.C. 393, 368 S.E.2d 684 (Ct. App. 1988)

Overview:       Wife was entitled to attorney fees, costs and expenses in post-divorce litigation where she prevailed on the majority of the issues.

MORRIS vs. MORRIS
295 S.C. 37, 367 S.E.2d 24 (S.C. 1988)

Overview:       Alimony awarded to wife in pre-divorce separate maintenance action terminated where wife committed adultery before divorce was granted.

BERRY vs. BERRY
290 S.C. 351, 350 S.E.2d 398 (Ct. App. 1986)
294 S.C. 334, 364 S.E.2d 463 (S.C. 1988)

Overview:       Preclusion of alimony award to wife because of her adultery could not be used as a reason to increase the equitable distribution award to the wife.

RIVERS vs. RIVERS
292 S.C. 21, 354 S.E.2d 784 (Ct. App. 1987)

Overview:       Civil action for alienation of affections and criminal conversation.  $75,000.00 award to wife against paramour/new wife affirmed.  Clergyman-penitent privilege applied to wife’s communications with minister in her individual sessions during marriage counseling.

LASSITER vs. LASSITER
289 S.C. 341, 345 S.E.2d 504 (Ct. App. 1986)
291 S.C. 136, 352 S.E.2d 486 (S.C. 1987)

Overview:       Family Court Order granting father visitation rights every other weekend, every Wednesday evening and six weeks in the summer and alternating major holiday visitation reversed as excessive.

MORRIS vs. MOONEY
288 S.C. 447, 343 S.E.2d 442 (S.C. 1986)

Overview:       Civil action for alienation of affections and criminal conversation.  Employer has no duty to investigate or prevent employee's adulterous relationship with co-employee.

RABON vs. RABON
288 S.C. 338, 342 S.E.2d 605 (S.C. 1986)

Overview:       Father's child support payments to mother increased from $1400 to $2000, to cover the increased private school costs and related incidental expenditures.

MARSH vs. HANCOCK
288 S.C. 341, 342 S.E.2d 607 (S.C. 1986)

Overview:       Family Court committed error by refusing to require father to pay a portion of the child’s extraordinary medical expenses which were not anticipated at the time child support was originally set.

VANCE vs. VANCE
287 S.C. 615, 340 S.E.2d 554 (Ct. App. 1986)

Overview:       Divorced wife's living with another man constituted changed circumstances which warranted reduction in alimony.

CALVERT vs. CALVERT
287 S.C. 130, 336 S.E.2d 884 (Ct. App. 1985)

Overview:       Husband was not entitled to delete a cost of living provision from the parties’ settlement agreement incorporated in divorce decree and to terminate or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of his alimony and child support obligation to the wife.

SMALL vs. SMALL
286 S.C. 87, 332 S.E.2d 769 (S.C. 1985)

Overview:       Wife was not entitled to subsequently disavow settlement agreement previously read into the record in open court and accepted by wife at the hearing.

BARTH vs. BARTH
285 S.C. 316, 329 S.E.2d 446 (Ct. App. 1985)

Overview:       Wife was not entitled to exclusive ownership of all properties legally titled in her name as well as an equitable interest in those properties legally titled in name of husband.

WILLIAMS vs. WILLIAMS
285 S.C. 270, 329 S.E.2d 751 (S.C. 1985)

Overview:       South Carolina properly assumed jurisdiction of custody issues under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act where mother and child had lived in South Carolina for seven (7) years before father commenced his action for custody.  Family Court properly awarded custody to father.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES vs. BROCK
285 S.C. 395, 329 S.E.2d 773 (Ct. App. 1985)

Overview:       Family Court committed error in holding former husband in contempt for failing to pay the debt and in ordering that he furnish proof of payment where the divorce decree clearly provided that former wife was responsible for payment of the debt.

STONE vs. STONE
285 S.C. 108, 328 S.E.2d 346 (S.C. 1985)

Overview:       Father has a right to participate and present evidence in mother’s action to change minor child’s surname.

STROUT vs. STROUT
284 S.C. 429, 327 S.E.2d 74 (S.C. 1985)

Overview:       Custody award to father affirmed after mother voluntarily turned physical custody of children over to the father.

ANDERSON vs. ANDERSON
284 S.C. 487, 327 S.E.2d 355 (Ct. App. 1985)

Overview:       Principles of res judicata did not bar husband’s petition to set aside consent judgment in light of husband's allegations that he was incapacitated by drinking problem and emotional instability at the time the consent judgment was executed, and husband was not represented by either an attorney or guardian ad litem at that time and, indeed, was not even present when the judgment was entered.

EADDY vs. EADDY
283 S.C. 582, 324 S.E.2d 70 (S.C. 1984)

Overview:       Elected member of state legislature waived the personal privilege or exemption from appearing in Court during legislative sessions by appearing and participating in Court proceeding without raising that objection.

EWING vs. BAUMRIND
283 S.C. 461, 322 S.E.2d 696 (Ct. App. 1984)

Overview:       Family Court committed error by summarily dismissing mother’s action for modification of an earlier order awarding custody to the father.

BRYAN vs. BRYAN
282 S.C. 506, 319 S.E.2d 360 (Ct. App. 1984)

Overview:       Family Court committed error by reducing the father’s child support payments where issue was not raised by the pleadings.

ANDERSON vs. ANDERSON
282 S.C. 162, 318 S.E.2d 566 (S.C. 1984)

Overview:       The Family Court committed error by arbitrarily attributing 50% of inherited property's increase in value to inflation and 50% to improvements and in awarding excessive attorney fees to the wife.

ARNOLD vs. YARBOROUGH
281 S.C. 570, 316 S.E.2d 416 (Ct. App. 1984)

Overview:       Civil action for alienation of affections and criminal conversation.  Settlement agreement reached in letters between attorneys was binding on and enforceable against the defendant.

SATTERWHITE vs. SATTERWHITE
280 S.C. 228, 312 S.E.2d 21 (Ct. App. 1984)

Overview:       Mother was properly held in contempt for denying father visitation and withholding personal property awarded to him by the Family Court.

PRATT vs. PRATT
280 S.C. 276, 312 S.E.2d 577 (Ct. App. 1984)

Overview:       Family Court ruling it had no jurisdiction to hold husband in contempt for nonpayment of alimony was error.

PEEBLES vs. DISHER
279 S.C. 611, 310 S.E.2d 823 (Ct. App. 1983)

Overview:       Agreement entered into between the parents following their divorce which provided that, in exchange for father's consent to adoption of his son by stepfather, mother would not attempt to collect past-due child support or seek support in the future, did not bar the mother from enforcing the support provisions of the divorce decree irrespective of whether the mother had sufficient assets to assume the father's duty of support.

MOSELEY vs. MOSIER
279 S.C. 348, 306 S.E.2d 624 (S.C. 1983)

Overview:       Overruled existing case law precedent governing Family Court’s jurisdiction over settlement agreements which were incorporated but not merged, abolished “words of art” distinction and vested jurisdiction over settlement agreements in the Family Court, unless the settlement agreement unambiguously denies that Court jurisdiction.

OLSON vs. OLSON
278 S.C. 258, 294 S.E.2d 425 (S.C. 1982)

Overview:       Jewelry purchased by husband while on honeymoon with wife was marital property subject to equitable division.

BROOKS vs. BROOKS
277 S.C. 322, 286 S.E.2d 669 (S.C. 1982)

Overview:       Family Court ruling that husband, a disbarred attorney, was not in contempt for failing to pay support and property payments due to wife was reversed.

CANNARELLA vs. CANNARELLA
275 S.C. 516, 273 S.E.2d 529 (S.C. 1980)

Overview:       Family Court committed error by denying wife temporary alimony where wife lacked sufficient means of her own to support and maintain herself and was thus entitled to temporary alimony.