Bailey v. Bailey, 20444

Citation269 S.C. 1,235 S.E.2d 801
Decision Date06 June 1977
Docket NumberNo. 20444,20444
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
PartiesAlice B. BAILEY, Appellant, v. Billy Guy BAILEY, Sr., Respondent.

John W. Williams, Williams & Williams, Columbia, for appellant.

W. L. Cooper, Jr., Cooper, Register & Bonnette, Lexington, for respondent.

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 granted a divorce on the grounds of three years' separation 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 all other circumstances of the case, such as the health and age of the parties, their earning capacities, the amount the wife has contributed to their wealth, and standard of living the wife was accustomed to at the time of the divorce, and the conduct of the parties. Nienow v. Nienow, supra.

The record is vague on respondent's exact wealth, but does show clearly that he has substantial real property and several partnership interests. He receives, as salary from a building construction partnership, approximately $14,000.00 net income a year. He also receives about $1,000.00 a year from a partnership that owns a liquor store. His net worth is approximately $50,000-$60,000. The wealth of the husband is an important consideration in fixing the amount of alimony, Graham v. Graham, 253 S.C. 486, 171 S.E.2d 704 (1970).

The record shows that Mrs. Bailey is in her mid-forties and has been afflicted with chronic and acute rheumatoid arthritis for about nine years. She has undergone surgery four times for this condition. Further surgery may be required. She is presently able to walk and get around by herself but is not able to do heavy housework; she needs the help of a maid. As far as it appears in the record, she has not been employed outside the home since her marriage in 1951 and is not now employable because of her severe physical impairment. Furthermore, she has no marketable skills.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Weller v. Weller
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • August 18, 2021
    ...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 conditio......
  • Weller v. Weller
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • August 18, 2021
    ...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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • November 15, 1983
    ...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 (1977). Now, accordingly, the order of the lower court AFFIRMED. CURETON and GOOLSBY, JJ., concur. ...
  • Major v. Major
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 21, 1982
    ...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, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT