Balestrine v. Jordan, 21333
| Decision Date | 20 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 21333,21333 |
| Citation | 272 S.E.2d 438,275 S.C. 442 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Concetta R. BALESTRINE, Respondent, v. David W. JORDAN, Appellant. |
Kenneth C. Hanson, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen., Daniel R. McLeod, Deputy Atty. Gen., Raymond G. Halford, Asst. Atty. Gen., Clifford O. Koon, Jr., and State's Atty., James G. Bogle, Columbia, for respondent.
Respondent Concetta R. Balestrine instituted this proceeding under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), Section 20-7-110, et seq., Code of Laws of S. C. (1976) seeking an increase in the amount of child support which was granted to her by an Arkansas divorce decree. Appellant David W. Jordan, a resident of Richland County, South Carolina, was divorced from respondent on August 4, 1970. The court awarded respondent the sum of $125.00 per month for child support. These payments have been made promptly since the date of decree.
The sole issue is whether the Family Court of Richland County has subject matter jurisdiction under URESA to increase the amount of child support granted to respondent by an out-of-state divorce decree. We hold it does.
Section 20-7-150, Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976) provides:
"The remedies provided in this article are in addition to and not in substitution for any other remedies."
A decree of support may be increased, decreased or terminated due to a change in circumstances pursuant to § 20-3-160, Code of Laws of S. C. (1976). Campbell v. McPherson, 268 S.C. 444, 234 S.E.2d 774 (1977).
We conclude there is ample authority for the proposition that the family court has subject matter jurisdiction under URESA to increase the amount of support granted in an out-of-state decree. According to 67A C.J.S. Parent and Child § 96, pp. 452-453:
"While a duty of support previously determined elsewhere will not be redetermined in the responding state, and a support order may not be superseded in the responding state, the amount of support previously ordered is not final and binding, and the court of the responding state has the authority to enter an independent order fixing a different amount of support than that previously set or recommended; the court may not erroneously fail to exercise its discretion in this respect."
See also: Olson v. Olson, 534 S.W.2d 526 (Mo.App.1976); Ainbender v. Ainbender, 344 A.2d 263 (Del.1975); Trippe v. Trippe, 53 Cal.App.3d 982, 126 Cal.Rptr. 214 (1975); Childers v. Childers, 198 S.E.2d 485, 19 N.C.App. 220...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. of Va. ex rel. Halsey v. Autry
...Thompson v. Thompson, 93 So.2d 90, 93 (Fla.1957); Moore v. Moore, 252 Iowa 404, 411, 107 N.W.2d 97, 100-01 (1961); Balestrine v. Jordan, S.C., 272 S.E.2d 438, 439 (1980); Davidson, 66 Wash.2d at 786, 405 P.2d at 264-65; see also Rohrer v. Kane, Colo.App., 609 P.2d 1121, 1122 (1980); Abb v. ......
-
State of Ga. v. McKenna
...than, a prior judgment. See Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. Halsey v. Autrey, 293 Md. 53, 441 A.2d 1056 (1982); Balestrine v. Jordan, 275 S.C. 442, 272 S.E.2d 438, 439 (1980); Rohrer v. Kane, 44 Colo.App. 85, 609 P.2d 1121 (1980); Jaramillo v. Jaramillo, 27 Wash.App. 391, 618 P.2d 528 (198......
-
SCDSS/Child Support Enforcement v. Carswell
...by the court codifying this agreement. This modification of the support order was allowed under URESA. See Balestrine v. Jordan, 275 S.C. 442, 443-44, 272 S.E.2d 438, 438-39 (1980). In 2002, DSS sought to file and register the Washington order so that it could enforce the support obligation......
-
Deltoro v. McMullen
...as a support order issued by a court of this state." The courts appear to have treated this language literally. See Balestrine v. Jordan, 275 S.C. 442, 272 S.E.2d 438 (1980) (family court had subject matter jurisdiction under URESA to increase the amount of support and granted in out-of-sta......