553 S.E.2d 493 (S.C.App. 2001), 3391, Bryson v. Bryson

Docket Nº:3391.
Citation:553 S.E.2d 493, 347 S.C. 221
Party Name:347 S.C. 221 Timothy D. BRYSON, Appellant/Respondent, v. Kathryn B. BRYSON, Respondent/Appellant.
Case Date:October 01, 2001
Court:Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Page 493

553 S.E.2d 493 (S.C.App. 2001)

347 S.C. 221

Timothy D. BRYSON, Appellant/Respondent,


Kathryn B. BRYSON, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 3391.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Oct. 1, 2001.

Submitted Sept. 4, 2001.

Page 494

[347 S.C. 223] J. Mark Taylor, of Wilson, Moore, Taylor & Thomas, of West Columbia, for appellant/respondent.

Harry C. Wilson, Jr., of Lee, Erter, Wilson, Holler & Smith, of Sumter, for respondent/appellant.


In this domestic action, Timothy Bryson appeals the family court's refusal to terminate his alimony obligation. Kathryn Bryson cross appeals the family court's order reducing Timothy's alimony obligation from $250 per month to $100 per month. We affirm in part and reverse in part.1

Timothy and Kathryn were married in 1961 and divorced in 1983. At the time of their divorce, the family court approved a settlement agreement providing for Timothy to pay alimony of $50 per month. By order dated October 25, 1985, the family court increased Timothy's alimony obligation to $250 per month.

In 1991, Timothy brought an action seeking to terminate alimony on the grounds that Kathryn was involved in a relationship with Roy Cagle, and that the relationship was tantamount to marriage.2 At that time, Kathryn had been living with Cagle since approximately 1988. In an order dated February 10, 1992, the family court held the relationship was not one tantamount to a marriage but was one of "mutual financial assistance and companionship" and refused

Page 495

to terminate alimony. In an unpublished opinion dated August 2, 1993, [347 S.C. 224] this court upheld the family court's decision. The South Carolina Supreme Court denied certiorari on May 6, 1994.

On December 15, 1999, Timothy brought the present action alleging a change of circumstances warranting termination of alimony. In support of his argument, the following evidence was presented: (1) Kathryn and Cagle still resided together and had done so for the last twelve years; (2) they moved to Florida together; (3) they purchased a home together; (4) the home was jointly titled and a mortgage was taken out in both their names; (5) though they stayed in separate bedrooms within the home, they engaged in sexual relations; (6) they traveled together and stayed together when so doing; (7) Kathryn's grandchildren were allowed to call Cagle "Pa Pa"; and (8)...

To continue reading