Bradley v. Bradley
| Decision Date | 30 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 0425,0425 |
| Citation | 328 S.E.2d 647,285 S.C. 170 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Jane O. BRADLEY, Appellant, v. Joseph Todd BRADLEY, Respondent. . Heard |
Thomas M. Boulware of Brown, Jefferies & Boulware, Barnwell, for appellant.
Walter Bedingfield and Agnes Dale Moore, Barnwell, for respondent.
The family court ordered respondent Joseph Todd Bradley to pay appellant Jane O. Bradley child support and alimony. This appeal raises three questions: whether the court abused its discretion in failing to award additional child support and alimony, and in failing to award attorney's fees. We affirm as modified.
This being an equity action tried by one judge, we have jurisdiction to determine the issues in accordance with our own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Barden v. Barden, 278 S.C. 672, 301 S.E.2d 141 (1983). The issues of how much child support and alimony should be awarded, and whether attorney's fees should be awarded, rest with the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent abuse of discretion. Smith v. Smith, 264 S.C. 624, 216 S.E.2d 541 (1975).
Joseph, 42, and Jane, 48, were married 22 years; both seem to be in good health. They have three children, ages 10, 19, and 20; the 19 year-old is in college. Joseph and his second wife have combined gross monthly income of $2400 (Joseph--$1600; second wife--$800). Joseph pays the Federal Parole Board $25 per month for funds he embezzled, and owes the Internal Revenue Service $33,000 on a tax lien and owes the state Tax Commission $4000 on a tax lien. In addition he is making monthly payments of $200 on a $12,000 furniture loan. Jane's net monthly income, including child support, is $674; she estimates her expenses are $960. She makes monthly payments on a $500 loan from Southern Bank, but she has not begun repaying a $1700 loan from her brother.
The family court ordered Joseph to (1) pay Jane $250 per month support for the minor child, and (2) make the $130 payment on the college student's car. When we consider child support, the needs of the children; the incomes, earning capacities, and assets of the parents; the health, age, and general physical conditions of the parents; and the necessities and living expenses of the parents are relevant. Corley v. Rowe, 280 S.C. 338, 312 S.E.2d 720 (Ct.App.1984). As far as the needs of the children are concerned, Jane has not shown additional support from Joseph is necessary. The record reflects the minor child is normal, and there is no indication the college student needs additional support to go to school. A divorced parent may be ordered to pay for the educational expenses of an emancipated child if he has the financial ability to help and the child could not otherwise go to school. Hughes v. Hughes, 280 S.C. 388, 313 S.E.2d 32 (Ct.App.1984). Both parents have an obligation to contribute to the support of their children. Peebles v. Disher, 279 S.C. 611, 310 S.E.2d 823 (Ct.App.1983).
The family court ordered Joseph...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Casey v. Casey
...of the trial judge whose determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Bradley v. Bradley, 285 S.C. 170, 328 S.E.2d 647, 648 (Ct.App.1985). In determining the amount of child support, the parents' ability to pay and the child's needs are two critical factors. ......
-
Woodside v. Woodside
...to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Bradley v. Bradley, 285 S.C. 170, 328 S.E.2d 647 (Ct.App.1985). In determining the amount of support to award, the court should consider both parent's ability to support the childr......
-
Sauls v. Sauls
...obligation to contribute to the support of their children. See Section 20-7-40, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976; Bradley v. Bradley, S.C. 328 S.E.2d 647 (Ct.App.1985). Mrs. Sauls testified that $100 per week was needed to support both children. Although the Family Court required Mr. Sa......
-
Patterson v. Patterson
...the trial judge and his decision on these issues will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Bradley v. Bradley, 285 S.C. 170, 328 S.E.2d 647 (Ct.App.1985). The trial judge failed to make the specific findings on these issues required by Rule 27(c) of the Rules of Practic......