Boney v. Boney
| Decision Date | 25 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 0763,0763 |
| Citation | 289 S.C. 596,347 S.E.2d 890 |
| Parties | Elsie B. BONEY, Respondent, v. Durham S. BONEY, Jr., Appellant. . Heard |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
William F. Able of Able & Associates, Columbia, for appellant.
Doris M. McAndrew of Robinson, McFadden, Moore, Pope, Williams, Taylor & Brailsford, Columbia, for respondent.
Durham S. Boney, Jr., appeals from the order of the Family Court awarding respondent, his former wife, an increase in alimony and denying a reduction or termination of alimony. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
These parties were divorced in 1977 by decree which, inter alia, awarded the wife $600.00 a month in alimony. In addition, the husband was ordered to provide health and hospitalization insurance for her. Thereafter, the parties agreed to satisfy the insurance requirements by his paying $50.00 a month in addition to the alimony payment.
In August, 1984, the wife petitioned the Court for a contempt order and an increase in alimony based upon increased property taxes and insurance premiums. She alleged that she was incapable of greater employment than her current position, suffered from poor health, and generally without any further means of supporting herself. The husband counterclaimed, seeking a reduction or termination of alimony, based upon a substantial reduction in income owing to termination from his former employment, his remarriage, and the wife's ability to be employed full time. The lower Court awarded the wife an increase of $75.00 a month in alimony and refused to reduce or terminate the husband's alimony payment. From this order he appeals.
The husband contends that the lower Court erred in awarding the wife an additional $75.00 a month in alimony, based on a change of circumstances. An award of periodic alimony may be modified upon a showing of altered circumstances. Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976 § 20-3-170). Darden v. Witham, 258 S.C. 380, 188 S.E.2d 776 (1972). However, the burden is upon the party seeking modification to show by the preponderance of the evidence that a change has occurred.
In the case before us, the only change testified to by the wife was an increase in insurance premiums and property taxes. At the time of the divorce in 1977, the marital residence was titled in the wife's name. She assumed the monthly mortgage payments of $169.63 and annual taxes and insurance premiums of $557.43. At the time of the hearing in the lower Court, her annual payment for taxes and insurance was $1,132.12, an annual increase of $484.69, or $40.39 a month. On the other hand, her monthly income had increased from $48.00 a month to $440.00, an increase of $392.00. The Trial Judge who granted the 1977 divorce decree obviously considered her meager income in setting alimony of $600.00 a month. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the Trial Judge in the case before us found that the wife "assumed prospective obligations of taxes, insurance, and maintenance at that time" (the time of the 1977 divorce decree), a finding inconsistent with his granting an increase in alimony based upon increased taxes and insurance.
Since the wife has had an increase of $392.00 a month in income, compared with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKinney v. Pedery
...711 S.E.2d 880, 885 (2011) ; Cartee v. Cartee, 295 S.C. 103, 104, 366 S.E.2d 269, 269 (Ct.App.1988) (quoting Boney v. Boney, 289 S.C. 596, 597, 347 S.E.2d 890, 891 (Ct.App.1986) ); see Feldman v. Feldman, 380 S.C. 538, 670 S.E.2d 669 (Ct.App.2008) (finding that testimony produced at trial s......
-
Kelley v. Kelley
...Kielar v. Kielar, 311 S.C. 466, 429 S.E.2d 851 (Ct.App.1993) (parties' standard of living during the marriage); Boney v. Boney, 289 S.C. 596, 347 S.E.2d 890 (Ct.App.1986) (earning capacity); Calvert v. Calvert, 287 S.C. 130, 336 S.E.2d 884 (Ct.App.1985) (payor spouse's continued ability to ......
-
McKinney v. Pedery
...711 S.E.2d 880, 885 (2011); Cartee v. Cartee, 295 S.C. 103, 104, 366 S.E.2d 269, 269 (Ct. App. 1988) (quoting Boney v. Boney, 289 S.C. 596, 597, 347 S.E.2d 890, 891 (Ct. App. 1986)); see Feldman v. Feldman, 380 S.C. 538, 670 S.E.2d 669 (Ct. App. 2008) (finding that testimony produced at tri......
-
Serowski v. Serowski
...has also been considered in the modification context. Kelley, 324 S.C. at 486, 477 S.E.2d at 729-30 (citing Boney v. Boney, 289 S.C. 596, 599, 347 S.E.2d 890, 892 (Ct.App. 1986)). While earning capacity can be considered as a factor in an action for modification of an alimony award, there i......