Adams v. Adams, 19766
| Decision Date | 31 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 19766,19766 |
| Citation | 262 S.C. 85,202 S.E.2d 639 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Bruce D. ADAMS, Appellant, v. Clarice June ADAMS, Respondent. |
George F. Townes, Greenville, for appellant.
Felix L. Finley, Jr., Pickens, for respondent.
The complaint of the plaintiff, Bruce D. Adams, sought a divorce from his wife, Clarice June Adams, the defendant, and requested the court to grant to the plaintiff custody of their two minor children. The answer and counterclaim prayed that the complaint be dismissed and that the defendant be awarded custody of the children. It also prayed for alimony for the defendant and support for the children, and for attorney's fees. The reply of the plaintiff to the counterclaim was a general denial.
The issues were tried before a special referee, who recommended a divorce on the ground of three years separation and recommended that custody of the children be given to the plaintiff. He also recommended that defendant's counsel be allowed no attorney's fees, and that the defendant be paid alimony in the sum of $50.00 per month.
The defendant excepted to the report of the special referee. Thereafter the issues raised by the exceptions were heard by the Honorable Frank Eppes, Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. The judge disagreed with the referee in certain particulars, which has brought about this appeal. He rejected the recommendation of the referee that the children be granted in custody to the plaintiff and ordered that they be given in custody to the defendant; he further directed that the plaintiff pay $35.00 per week alimony and $40.00 per week child support, and directed that the plaintiff pay the defendant's attorney a $500.00 fee. He concurred with the referee in holding that a divorce be granted.
In this appeal the plaintiff argues that the court erred (1) 'in awarding custody of the two children to the mother,' (2) 'in viewing the mother at the time the exceptions were argued and basing a finding upon such evidence,' and (3) in making an 'award of alimony and attorney's fees.'
Apparently the defendant attended the hearing before the judge. In his order he commented that '(h)er general physical appearance then was good.' The argument that the circuit court overruled the referee based on new visual evidence presented to him at the arguments is patently without merit.
The granting of custody of children, payment of alimony and child support, and awarding of attorney's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marshall v. Marshall
...discretion. Graham v. Graham, 253 S.C. 486, 171 S.E.2d 704 (1970); Smith v. Smith, 264 S.C. 624, 216 S.E.2d 541 (1975); Adams v. Adams, 262 S.C. 85, 202 S.E.2d 639 (1974). We see no abuse of discretion. If Dr. Marshall pays $2,000 into the trust annually, at some point in time the trust wil......
-
Ariail v. Ariail
...to award her child support. The issue of child custody is a matter largely within the discretion of the family court. Adams v. Adams, 262 S.C. 85, 202 S.E.2d 639 (1974). Both parents are chargeable with the support of their children and may be required to pay a fair and reasonable sum for t......
-
Smith v. Smith
...are "superior." The question of children's custody is one addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Adams v. Adams, 262 S.C. 85, 202 S.E.2d 639 (1974). We are unable to discover an abuse of discretion In awarding the wife custody of the parties' two sons, the trial court also no......
-
Hartley v. Hartley
...230 (1975). The award of a child's custody is a matter that rests largely within the discretion of the trial court. Adams v. Adams, 262 S.C. 85, 202 S.E.2d 639 (1974). We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in awarding custody of the parties' daughter to the mother. T......