Brandi v. Brandi, No. 1547

CourtSouth Carolina Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation396 S.E.2d 124,302 S.C. 353
Decision Date20 August 1990
Docket NumberNo. 1547
PartiesJo Ann Curtis BRANDI, Respondent, v. Robert R. BRANDI and Bob Brandi Stations, Inc., Appellants. . Heard

Page 124

396 S.E.2d 124
302 S.C. 353
Jo Ann Curtis BRANDI, Respondent,
v.
Robert R. BRANDI and Bob Brandi Stations, Inc., Appellants.
No. 1547.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard Aug. 20, 1990.
Decided Sept. 17, 1990.

Page 125

[302 S.C. 354] S. Jahue Moore, of Kirkland, Taylor, Wilson, Moore, Allen & Deneen, West Columbia, for appellants.

John M. Williamson, III, Columbia, for respondent.

[302 S.C. 355] PER CURIAM:

This is a domestic case. The parties were married ten years. The court granted the wife a divorce on the ground of adultery. The court awarded $1500 per month in alimony to the wife and a thirty percent equitable interest in the marital property. Additionally, the court awarded attorney fees and costs to the wife. The husband appeals the decision in various respects. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL PROPERTY

The parties were married in 1978. At the time of the marriage, Mr. Brandi was operating a leased Texaco station. Mrs. Brandi was employed at a state agency. Mr. Brandi recognized the trend toward convenience stores as opposed to full service gasoline stations. In the early 1980's Mr. Brandi located and purchased the first of several sites on which he constructed a convenience store. By the time the parties separated and marital litigation was commenced, Mr. Brandi had opened four convenience stores. 1

Shortly after the marriage, Mrs. Brandi left state employment and began a typing business. The business was opened with the financial assistance of Mr. Brandi. During the eight years of operation Mrs. Brandi testified she knew nothing about the financial condition of the business because it was handled through Mr. Brandi's operations. The typing business was sold during the marriage for $15,000. Mrs. Brandi testified she worked at one of the convenience stores for the final two years of the marriage as a paid employee. During 1987 she earned approximately $7500. Her employment was terminated in 1988 after the parties' separation.

The parties achieved an affluent lifestyle during the marriage. The marital residence was sold for $250,000 with a realization of $164,000 in equity which they equally divided. The Brandis also owned substantial personal property and had certificates of deposit and I.R.A. accounts valued at $67,000.

The family court held the net value of the marital property, [302 S.C. 356] exclusive of the residence, was $1,716,216.10. The court awarded Mrs. Brandi a thirty percent interest valued at $514,864.83. To effect this division, the court awarded her a lake lot and required Mr. Brandi to pay the balance in cash within six months.

Mr. Brandi challenges the family court's finding that the business was marital property. He also asserts error in the valuation of the business and the apportionment of thirty percent of the marital property to Mrs. Brandi.

S.C.Code Ann. Section 20-7-473 (Cum.Supp.1989) defines marital property as "all real and personal property which has been acquired by the parties during the marriage and which is owned as of the date of filing or commencement of marital litigation ... regardless of how legal title is held." Under this definition the business

Page 126

property acquired by Mr. Brandi during the course of the marriage, including the four convenience stores in question, is marital property. He argues the stores are not marital property because they were acquired based upon his good credit reputation and income generated from the leased Texaco station. We reject this argument. While Mr. Brandi's good credit reputation may be considered by the court as a contribution by him to the acquisition of the convenience stores, it cannot be considered real or personal property. Any income Brandi received from the leased Texaco station after the marriage of the parties constituted marital property. Mr. Brandi has not established what, if any, premarital assets were utilized in financing the convenience stores. The burden to show an exemption under S.C.Code Ann. Section 20-7-473 is upon the one claiming that property acquired during the marriage is not marital. Roberts v. Roberts, 296 S.C. 93, 370 S.E.2d 881 (Ct.App.1988), aff'd as modified, 299 S.C. 315, 384 S.E.2d 719 (1989). We affirm the inclusion by the family court of the Ballentine, Lexington, Irmo, and Chapin convenience stores as marital property.

Mr. Brandi also challenges the valuation of the business. Both parties presented real estate appraisals of the convenience stores. Mr. Brandi also presented the testimony of his accountant. The accountant utilized Mr. Brandi's real estate appraisals as well as monthly financial statements to present evidence of the assets and liabilities of [302 S.C. 357] the Brandis. In its order, the family court utilized the real estate appraisals presented by Mrs. Brandi to derive a value for the land and building at each location. The court then deducted the mortgage balance to compute an equity value for each business site. The court also valued and included as marital property the stock held by Mr. Brandi in Bob Brandi Station Inc., a subchapter S corporation.

We find the method used to value the business flawed. The business is to be valued at its fair market value as a going business. 2 Reid v. Reid, 280 S.C. 367, 312 S.E.2d 724 (Ct.App.1984). While there was no error in utilizing the real estate appraisals offered by Mrs. Brandi, as opposed to those of Mr. Brandi, the valuation should also have considered other factors such as inventory, accounts payable and receivable, and other legitimate assets or liabilities. This court has reviewed the three volume record and specifically the testimony of Mr. Brandi's accountant. We hoped to resolve this matter on the record. However,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Wooten v. Wooten, No. 3610.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 10, 2003
    ...v. Williamson, 311 S.C. 47, 426 S.E.2d 758 (1993); McElveen v. McElveen, 332 S.C. 583, 506 S.E.2d 1 (Ct.App.1998); Brandi v. Brandi, 302 S.C. 353, 396 S.E.2d 124 In making an award of alimony, the following factors must be considered and weighed: (1) the duration of the marriage and ages of......
  • Calhoun v. Calhoun, No. 2793.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 17, 1998
    ...relevant to a determination of an award of alimony. See Williamson v. Williamson, 311 S.C. 47, 426 S.E.2d 758 (1993); Brandi v. Brandi, 302 S.C. 353, 396 S.E.2d 124 (Ct.App.1990) (finding an alimony award should not serve as a disincentive for a spouse to make reasonable efforts to improve ......
  • Wooten v. Wooten, No. 3610.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 10, 2003
    ...v. Williamson, 311 S.C. 47, 426 S.E.2d 758 (1993); McElveen v. McElveen, 332 S.C. 583, 506 S.E.2d 1 (Ct.App.1998); Brandi v. Brandi, 302 S.C. 353, 396 S.E.2d 124 In making an award of alimony, the following factors must be considered and weighed: (1) the duration of the marriage and ages of......
  • Bojilov v. Bojilov, Appellate Case No. 2015-000991
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 19, 2018
    ...wife brought significant nonmarital property into the marriage, and the wife's wealth decreased during the marriage); Brandi v. Brandi , 302 S.C. 353, 357–58, 396 S.E.2d 124, 126–27 (Ct. App. 1990) (per curiam) (affirming a 70/30 division in equitable distribution).F. Attorney's Fees Last, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Wooten v. Wooten, No. 3610.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 10, 2003
    ...v. Williamson, 311 S.C. 47, 426 S.E.2d 758 (1993); McElveen v. McElveen, 332 S.C. 583, 506 S.E.2d 1 (Ct.App.1998); Brandi v. Brandi, 302 S.C. 353, 396 S.E.2d 124 In making an award of alimony, the following factors must be considered and weighed: (1) the duration of the marriage and ages of......
  • Calhoun v. Calhoun, No. 2793.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 17, 1998
    ...relevant to a determination of an award of alimony. See Williamson v. Williamson, 311 S.C. 47, 426 S.E.2d 758 (1993); Brandi v. Brandi, 302 S.C. 353, 396 S.E.2d 124 (Ct.App.1990) (finding an alimony award should not serve as a disincentive for a spouse to make reasonable efforts to improve ......
  • Wooten v. Wooten, No. 3610.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 10, 2003
    ...v. Williamson, 311 S.C. 47, 426 S.E.2d 758 (1993); McElveen v. McElveen, 332 S.C. 583, 506 S.E.2d 1 (Ct.App.1998); Brandi v. Brandi, 302 S.C. 353, 396 S.E.2d 124 In making an award of alimony, the following factors must be considered and weighed: (1) the duration of the marriage and ages of......
  • Bojilov v. Bojilov, Appellate Case No. 2015-000991
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 19, 2018
    ...wife brought significant nonmarital property into the marriage, and the wife's wealth decreased during the marriage); Brandi v. Brandi , 302 S.C. 353, 357–58, 396 S.E.2d 124, 126–27 (Ct. App. 1990) (per curiam) (affirming a 70/30 division in equitable distribution).F. Attorney's Fees Last, ......
  • 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