286 S.E.2d 135 (S.C. 1982), 21620, Bugg v. Bugg

Docket Nº:21620.
Citation:286 S.E.2d 135, 277 S.C. 270
Opinion Judge:LITTLEJOHN, Justice:
Party Name:Bernard BUGG, Respondent, v. Roger Mae BUGG, Appellant.
Attorney:Joseph T. McElveen, Jr., of Bryan, Bahnmuller, King, Goldman & McElveen, Sumter, for appellant. John O. McDougall, of Weinberg, Warner, Brown & McDougall, Sumter, for respondent.
Case Date:January 05, 1982
Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 135

286 S.E.2d 135 (S.C. 1982)

277 S.C. 270

Bernard BUGG, Respondent,

v.

Roger Mae BUGG, Appellant.

No. 21620.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

January 5, 1982

[277 S.C. 271] Joseph T. McElveen, Jr., of Bryan, Bahnmuller, King, Goldman & McElveen, Sumter, for appellant.

John O. McDougall, of Weinberg, Warner, Brown & McDougall, Sumter, for respondent.

Page 136

LITTLEJOHN, Justice:

Roger Mae Bugg (Wife) appeals from a Family Court Order following a hearing involving separate actions filed by her and by Respondent, Bernard Bugg (Husband).

That Order (1) denied Husband's request for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, 1 (2) granted Wife a $10,000 interest in the real property accumulated during marriage, (3) denied alimony for Wife, and (4) denied attorneys' fees and costs for Wife.

Wife argues that her interest in the marital property exceeded the $10,000 award. Specifically, she claims a larger equitable interest in the real property acquired during marriage and also an equitable interest in Husband's military [277 S.C. 272] retirement pay. The personal property was divided by agreement between the parties.

At oral arguments before this Court, counsel for Wife withdrew the claim to Husband's military retirement pay on the grounds that this claim was controlled by the recent U. S. Supreme Court decision of McCarty v. McCarty, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (decided June 26, 1981). McCarty involved a marriage dissolution proceeding under California community property laws wherein the U. S. Supreme Court held that one's military retirement pay was not subject to division between the parties by the state court pursuant to the community property laws. 2 We agree that McCarty precludes Wife's claim.

Wife argues that the $10,000 equitable interest award in the marital real property, appraised at $48,000 at the time, was inadequate.

The parties were married from 1942-1977, at which time they separated following a domestic argument. Husband served in the military from 1941 until his retirement in 1962. At that time, he entered college to study accounting and graduated in 1965. In 1964, his first experience with depressive illness occurred. Since 1965, he has worked at various jobs (accountant, teacher, carpenter, purchasing agent) and, at the time of the hearing, operated a small bicycle repair shop. A psychiatrist testified that...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP