Bass v. Bass, 20831
| Decision Date | 06 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 20831,20831 |
| Parties | Lillian C. BASS, Respondent, v. Marvelin I. BASS, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
J. D. Todd, Jr., of Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, Greenville, for appellant.
Sol E. Abrams, of Abrams, Bowen, Robertson & Tapp, Greenville, for respondent.
Lillian C. Bass (wife) instituted this action against her husband Marvelin I. Bass, for legal separation, support and maintenance for herself and her son, use of the family home, attorney fees, and other and further relief as the court deemed just and proper. In his answer the husband denied that the wife was entitled to any relief and asserted that in actuality she had abandoned him.
After a full hearing, Family Court Judge James W. Sparks held: (1) that the wife was not entitled to support, (2) that title to the family home and most furnishings should remain in the husband's name, (3) that the wife and the child of the marriage be allowed to live there until the child (now 17) became 18 years of age, became emancipated, or left home, (4) that the husband should continue to make mortgage and utility payments on the home, pay $40.00 per week child support, and pay $1,200.00 attorney fees to the wife, (5) that the wife was entitled to $10,800.00 for "valuable services furnished to the husband in his business." Both parties appealed, each taking exception to virtually every finding of fact and conclusion of law made by the court and complaining of the amount of each award. The husband alleges "too much"; the wife contends "too little."
Findings of fact with respect to payment of wife and child support and with respect to the granting of custody and attorney fees are largely within the discretion of the trial court in both divorce actions and actions for legal separation. Cheatham v. Cheatham, 245 S.C. 579, 141 S.E.2d 813 (1965). There is substantial evidence in the record before us to support the judge's findings of fact on each of these points, and we cannot say as a matter of law that he abused his discretion. We also find no error in the judge's refusal to award the wife interest in the residence and furnishings. The evidence supporting the findings is clear. We unanimously conclude that a full written opinion on these issues would have no precedential value and, accordingly, we affirm those findings under our Rule 23.
The evidence shows that the husband operated a restaurant business in the town of Laurens and that the wife devoted time and effort and possibly some resources to that business. Because of her activity incident to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cheap-O's Truck Stop, Inc. v. Cloyd
...placed on notice of the issues which the court will consider to afford the litigant an opportunity to be heard); Bass v. Bass, 272 S.C. 177, 180, 249 S.E.2d 905, 906 (1978) (footnote omitted) (requiring a litigant be placed on notice of the issues which the court is to consider). Moreover, ......
-
Hunnicutt v. Hunnicutt
... ... Ingram , 273 S.C ... 113, 254 S.E.2d 680 (1979); Bass v. Bass , 272 S.C ... 177, 249 S.E.2d 905 (1978); Bolding v. Bolding , 283 ... S.C ... ...
-
Browning v. Browning
...son continuing coverage and beneficiary information; and (3) to limit his cash withdrawals from the policy. See Bass v. Bass, 272 S.C. 177, 180, 249 S.E.2d 905, 906 (1978) (holding the family court cannot award relief that is not contemplated by the pleadings). III. Attorney's Fees Finally,......
-
S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Smith
...in family court actions "to the extent it permits the court to grant relief not requested in the pleadings"); Bass v. Bass , 272 S.C. 177, 179–80, 249 S.E.2d 905, 906 (1978) (finding the family court erred as a matter of law in awarding the wife business compensation when she did not assert......