Ivey v. Ivey
| Decision Date | 23 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 0515,0515 |
| Citation | 286 S.C. 315,334 S.E.2d 123 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Mary McCollum IVEY, Respondent, v. Charles Hugh IVEY, Appellant. . Heard |
Kenneth C. Porter of Porter & Rosenfeld, Greenville, for appellant.
William F. Robertson, III of Robertson & Cassidy, Greenville, for respondent.
This is an appeal from portions of a family court order awarding respondent Mary M. Ivey $400 per month alimony, a $100,000 insurance policy to the minor child of the parties as beneficiary, and $1500 attorney fees. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
In appeals from family courts this court can make findings of fact in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 283 S.C. 87, 320 S.E.2d 706, 708 (1984); Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976).
The parties were married in 1974 and had one child. Upon Mrs. Ivey's petition the court granted to her a divorce, custody of the minor child, $200 monthly child support, $400 monthly alimony, possession of the former marital home until the child reaches age eighteen, a one-half equitable interest in the marital home, $1500 attorney fees, and granted her request to make the child the beneficiary of Mr. Ivey's $100,000 insurance policy, and denied her any interest in Mr. Ivey's business.
Evidence revealed and the court found a difference in Mr. Ivey's actual and reported income. He operates a sole proprietorship and a portion of his income is cash. The court determined Mr. Ivey's income to be between $30,000 and $36,000 annually. The court determined Mrs. Ivey's income to be $6,000 annually. Among the factors to be considered in determining whether alimony should be awarded are (1) the financial condition of the husband and the needs of the wife, (2) the age and health of the parties, their respective earning capacity, their individual wealth, (3) the wife's contribution to the accumulation of their joint wealth, (4) the conduct of the parties, (5) the respective necessities of the parties, (6) the standard of living of the wife at the time of the divorce, (7) the duration of the marriage, (8) the ability of the husband to pay alimony, and (9) the actual income of the parties. Lide v. Lide, 277 S.C. 155, 283 S.E.2d 832 (1981). The court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $400 monthly to Mrs. Ivey.
Attorney fee entitlement awards are based on nature, extent and difficulty of services rendered, time devoted to the case, professional standing of the individual lawyer, and the beneficial result accomplished at trial. Nienow v. Nienow, 268 S.C. 161, 232 S.E.2d 504 (1977).
Mrs. Ivey testified she retained her lawyer for $2000 and paid $230. An affidavit submitted to the court revealed the lawyer spent around 24 hours on the case including the contested hearing. Mr. Ivey's answer was a general denial of the allegations in Mrs. Ivey's petition. Her lawyer was required to secure evidence concerning Mr. Ivey's adultery and his financial status which resulted in a favorable holding for Mrs. Ivey.
We hold the court did not abuse its discretion in the attorney fees.
The family court is within its legal authority to require a supporting spouse to maintain a life insurance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wooten v. Wooten
...beneficiary, provided the requirement is "based on justice, equity, and compelling reasons for this necessity." Ivey v. Ivey, 286 S.C. 315, 318, 334 S.E.2d 123, 125 (Ct.App.1985) (finding no compelling reason requiring husband to secure child support with life insurance); see also Sutton v.......
-
McElveen v. McElveen
...Mallett, 323 S.C. 141, 473 S.E.2d 804 (Ct.App.1996); Harlan v. Harlan, 300 S.C. 537, 389 S.E.2d 165 (Ct.App.1990); Ivey v. Ivey, 286 S.C. 315, 334 S.E.2d 123 (Ct.App.1985). The ability of the supporting spouse to pay (whether he or she earns adequate income to meet the obligation) and the s......
-
Harlan v. Harlan
...continued support of the child. However, this requirement must be based on justice, equity, and compelling reasons. Ivey v. Ivey, 286 S.C. 315, 334 S.E.2d 123 (Ct.App.1985). The children are not the named beneficiaries of the policy in this case. Further, we do not find a compelling reason ......
-
Luthi v. Luthi
...by intentionally refusing or failing to work. Finally, we affirm the amount of attorney fees awarded the wife. See Ivey v. Ivey, 286 S.C. 315, 334 S.E.2d 123 (Ct.App.1985). For the reasons stated, the appealed order is affirmed in part, modified in part, reversed in part and remanded for th......