Brown v. Brown, 21706
Decision Date | 19 May 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 21706,21706 |
Citation | 278 S.C. 43,292 S.E.2d 297 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Arnold E. BROWN, Respondent-Appellant, v. Sarah R. BROWN, Appellant-Respondent. |
Forrest C. Wilkerson, of Roddey, Carpenter & White, Rock Hill, for appellant-respondent.
Peter M. Perrill, Rock Hill, for respondent-appellant.
The parties have appealed from an order issued in response to Mr. Brown's petition for a reduction in alimony payments.
The parties were divorced in July, 1979, and financial relief was ordered based on their oral agreement in court. No testimony was offered as to the financial basis for the relief, and the order contained no findings of fact on this issue. Six months later Mr. Brown sought a reduction of the alimony award of six hundred fifty dollars per month based on changed circumstances. He alleged two changes had occurred--Mrs. Brown had accepted full-time employment and his salary had decreased because of medical problems.
The court found Mrs. Brown's employment was anticipated and, therefore, was not a change of circumstances warranting a modification of alimony. We agree that the preponderance of the evidence supports this finding by the lower court.
The court found further that Mr. Brown's earning capacity had decreased and would continue to do so. Finding that the previously ordered alimony payments equaled twenty-one percent of Mr. Brown's gross annual income for 1979, the court ordered him to pay monthly alimony in an amount adjusted annually to equal twenty-one percent of his gross annual income for the previous year. We reverse this portion of the court's order for the reasons discussed below.
During the settlement negotiations prior to the divorce, Mr. Brown presented a letter from his doctor stating that his physical condition would require a progressive reduction in his working hours. Mr. Brown's decreased hours at the time of the hearing had reduced his salary at Brown's Pharmacy fifty dollars a week, while his salary as a part-time hospital pharmacist remained the same. His non-salary income had increased because he was selling an interest in Brown's Pharmacy to a partner. In addition, Mr. Brown had remarried and had recently acquired a construction loan to build a new home.
This being a matter in equity heard by a single judge, the Court is free to find the facts based on our view of the preponderance of the evidence. Major v. Major, 286 S.E.2d 666, 1982. The evidence showed that Mr. Brown knew...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Padgett v. Sun News
-
Kelley v. Kelley
...changed ... either party may apply to the court"). The change must be unanticipated and either substantial or material. Brown v. Brown, 278 S.C. 43, 292 S.E.2d 297 (1982); Calvert v. Calvert, 287 S.C. 130, 336 S.E.2d 884 (Ct.App.1985). Many of the same considerations relevant to the initial......
-
Collins v. Collins
...of her upbringing. "While this Court is free to find facts based on our view of the preponderance of the evidence, Brown v. Brown, , 292 S.E.2d 297 (1982), the trial judge, who observes the witnesses and is in a better position to judge their demeanor and veracity, is given broad discretion......
-
Calvert v. Calvert
...alimony or child support. 27A C.J.S. Divorce § 239 at 1137 (1959); 67A C.J.S. Parent & Child § 83b at 420 (1978); see Brown v. Brown, 278 S.C. 43, 292 S.E.2d 297 (1982). Here, the decrease in Dr. Calvert's income has not been, in our opinion, either substantial or material, especially when ......