Bailey v. Bailey, 20444
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | GREGORY; LEWIS |
| Citation | 269 S.C. 1,235 S.E.2d 801 |
| Parties | Alice B. BAILEY, Appellant, v. Billy Guy BAILEY, Sr., Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 20444,20444 |
| Decision Date | 06 June 1977 |
Page 801
v.
Billy Guy BAILEY, Sr., Respondent.
[269 S.C. 2] John W. Williams, Williams & Williams, Columbia, for appellant.
W. L. Cooper, Jr., Cooper, Register & Bonnette, Lexington, for respondent.
[269 S.C. 3] GREGORY, Justice:
Mrs. Bailey appeals from a divorce decree of the Lexington County Family Court which provided in part that she be awarded $200.00 per month permanent alimony. The main issue on appeal is the adequacy of the alimony. We find the lower court abused its discretion and reverse.
Mr. and Mrs. Bailey separated in 1971. Mrs. Bailey brought an action for divorce a vinculo matrimonii in 1972, which resulted in a temporary order requiring respondent to pay $525.00 per month support for his wife. The order also provided that Mrs. Bailey would continue to live in the home formerly occupied by husband and wife; she would, however, be required to make the house payments (approximately $118.00 per month). She was to be furnished with a car.
In early 1976 Mrs. Bailey filed an amended complaint, which Mr. Bailey answered and to which he filed a counterclaim. The lower court ordered the matter heard by reference. The Special Referee recommended that appellant be [269 S.C. 4] granted a divorce on the grounds of three years' separation
Page 802
and that she be provided with alimony of $200.00 per month. He also recommended that she be allowed to continue living in the former marital home. Respondent was to make the house payments and continue carrying hospitalization insurance for appellant. Further, respondent was to transfer title to a 1972 Oldsmobile to her.The family court accepted these recommendations and issued an order granting the parties a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. The part of the order awarding $200.00 per month alimony is the crux of this appeal.
The judge in a divorce action is given broad discretion in deciding questions of alimony, attorneys' fees, child support and custody, etc. When a judge has concurred with a referee in findings of fact, we will not overturn those findings unless they are without evidentiary support or against the clear preponderance of the evidence. Porter v. Porter, 246 S.C. 332, 143 S.E.2d 619 (1965); Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976).
Alimony is to serve as a substitute for the husband's legal duty to support his wife. Beasley v. Beasley, 264 S.C. 611, 216 S.E.2d 535 (1975). In deciding upon the grant of alimony and the amount to be ordered, the judge should consider the financial condition of the husband and the needs of the wife. Nienow v. Nienow, S.C., 232 S.E.2d 504 (1977). Also to be considered are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weller v. Weller, Appellate Case No. 2018-000809
...Husband's circumstances both at the time of their divorce and at the time of filing for termination or modification. See Bailey v. Bailey , 269 S.C. 1, 4, 235 S.E.2d 801, 802 (1977) (stating the determination of alimony envelops all circumstances surrounding the case, including the financia......
-
Weller v. Weller, 5847
...Husband's circumstances both at the time of their divorce and at the time of filing for termination or modification. See Bailey v. Bailey, 269 S.C. 1, 4, 235 S.E.2d 801, 802 (1977) (stating the determination of alimony envelops all circumstances surrounding the case, including the financial......
-
Kane v. Kane, 0085
...judge whose judgment will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Powers v. Powers, 273 S.C. 51, 254 S.E.2d 289 (1979); Bailey v. Bailey, 269 S.C. 1, 235 S.E.2d 801 Now, accordingly, the order of the lower court is AFFIRMED. CURETON and GOOLSBY, JJ., concur. ...
-
Prince v. Prince, 0431
...husband's duty to support his wife, the court cannot consider the contributions of the wife's relatives to her support." Bailey v. Bailey, 269 S.C. 1, 235 S.E.2d 801, 803 (1977). The court also violated Rule 27(c) of the Rules of Practice for the Family Courts by not "[setting] forth the sa......
-
Weller v. Weller, Appellate Case No. 2018-000809
...Husband's circumstances both at the time of their divorce and at the time of filing for termination or modification. See Bailey v. Bailey , 269 S.C. 1, 4, 235 S.E.2d 801, 802 (1977) (stating the determination of alimony envelops all circumstances surrounding the case, including the financia......
-
Weller v. Weller, 5847
...Husband's circumstances both at the time of their divorce and at the time of filing for termination or modification. See Bailey v. Bailey, 269 S.C. 1, 4, 235 S.E.2d 801, 802 (1977) (stating the determination of alimony envelops all circumstances surrounding the case, including the financial......
-
Kane v. Kane, 0085
...judge whose judgment will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Powers v. Powers, 273 S.C. 51, 254 S.E.2d 289 (1979); Bailey v. Bailey, 269 S.C. 1, 235 S.E.2d 801 Now, accordingly, the order of the lower court is AFFIRMED. CURETON and GOOLSBY, JJ., concur. ...
-
Major v. Major, 21633
...to the marital relationship. Lide v. Lide, S.C., 283 S.E.2d 832 (1981); Powers v. Powers, 273 S.C. 51, 254 S.E.2d 289; Bailey v. Bailey, 269 S.C. 1, 235 S.E.2d 801; Nienow v. Nienow, 268 S.C. 161, 170, 232 S.E.2d 504; Beasley v. Beasley, 264 S.C. 611, 612, 216 S.E.2d 535; Spence v. Spence, ......