Carter v. Carter, No. 21623
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | HARWELL; LEWIS |
| Citation | 286 S.E.2d 139,277 S.C. 277 |
| Parties | James A. CARTER, Appellant, v. Ruby T. CARTER, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 06 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 21623 |
Page 139
v.
Ruby T. CARTER, Respondent.
Hans F. Paul, of Paul, Seaton & DeVane, Charleston Heights, for appellant.
Henry T. Gaud, Charleston, for respondent.
HARWELL, Justice:
This is an appeal from a Family Court order granting appellant a divorce on grounds of twelve months continuous separation and awarding respondent alimony, one-half of all payments[277 S.C. 278] from appellant's retirement fund, and attorney's fees. We remand the case, directing the Family Court to have a de novo hearing and to comply with Family Court Rule 27(3).
After twenty-eight years of marriage, appellant and respondent separated. Respondent remained in the marital residence, and appellant continued to pay all taxes and insurance for respondent. He also provided respondent with an automobile and $125 a week. Appellant works approximately sixteen hours a day at two jobs: as a sheet metal mechanic for the Naval Weapons Stations and as a part-time contract welder. Respondent is employed part-time at an elementary school.
Initially, we recognize that the divorce decree fails to set forth the salient facts upon which the lower court (1) granted respondent alimony of $316.15 every two weeks (2) divided appellant's civil service retirement fund with respondent, and (3) determined that respondent was entitled to $750 attorney's fee. Because the order does not comply with the requirements of Family Court Rule 27(3), the record is insufficient to permit review by this Court. Stahl v. Stahl, S.C., 278 S.E.2d 782, 1981; Garvin v. Garvin, 275 S.C. 379, 271 S.E.2d 413 (1980).
Also, the judgment was entered in contravention of Family Court Rule 16. The trial judge stated at the outset:
After a lengthy conversation, we have reached what we think is a fair settlement of the property--money matters involved.
Page 140
I say settlement, the attorneys--I've advised them what my decision would be if the proof was forthcoming to that effect.Appellant's attorney replied that his client did not consent to the settlement voluntarily but that he had informed his client that the settlement was the consensus of the court. Then respondent was excused and the hearing proceeded solely to put the grounds for divorce on record. The trial judge made his determinations of alimony, property settlement and attorney's fees without the aid of sworn testimony or any agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butcher v. Butcher, No. 16705
...S.W.2d 767 (Mo.App.1981); Pyke v. Pyke, 212 Neb. 114, 321 N.W.2d 906 (1982); Rust v. Rust, 321 N.W.2d 504 (N.D.1982); Carter v. Carter, 277 S.C. 277, 286 S.E.2d 139 3 It was amended in 1984, but none of these amendments relate to the issues involved in this case. We will cite the date of th......
-
Smith v. Smith, No. 0061
...the family court abused its discretion in awarding the wife a twenty per cent (20%) interest in his pension fund. In Carter v. Carter, 277 S.C. 277, 286 S.E.2d 139 (1982), the Supreme Court remarked in a Although contributions to any pension fund other than civil service retirement funds ar......
-
Watson v. Watson, No. 0842
...(1983), our Supreme Court held that military retirement benefits are not subject to equitable distribution. Further, in Carter v. Carter, 277 S.C. 277, 286 S.E.2d 139 (1982), and Anderson v. Anderson, 282 S.C. 162, 318 S.E.2d 566 (1984), that Court concluded that civil service retirement wa......
-
Martin v. Martin, No. 1240
...benefits Page 708 were not subject to equitable distribution. Bugg v. Bugg, 277 S.C. 270, 286 S.E.2d 135 (1982); Carter v. Carter, 277 S.C. 277, 286 S.E.2d 139 (1982) (dicta); Brown v. Brown, 279 S.C. 116, 302 S.E.2d 860 (1983); Haynes v. Haynes, 279 S.C. 162, 303 S.E.2d 429 (1983); Eichor ......
-
Butcher v. Butcher, No. 16705
...S.W.2d 767 (Mo.App.1981); Pyke v. Pyke, 212 Neb. 114, 321 N.W.2d 906 (1982); Rust v. Rust, 321 N.W.2d 504 (N.D.1982); Carter v. Carter, 277 S.C. 277, 286 S.E.2d 139 3 It was amended in 1984, but none of these amendments relate to the issues involved in this case. We will cite the date of th......
-
Smith v. Smith, No. 0061
...the family court abused its discretion in awarding the wife a twenty per cent (20%) interest in his pension fund. In Carter v. Carter, 277 S.C. 277, 286 S.E.2d 139 (1982), the Supreme Court remarked in a Although contributions to any pension fund other than civil service retirement funds ar......
-
Watson v. Watson, No. 0842
...(1983), our Supreme Court held that military retirement benefits are not subject to equitable distribution. Further, in Carter v. Carter, 277 S.C. 277, 286 S.E.2d 139 (1982), and Anderson v. Anderson, 282 S.C. 162, 318 S.E.2d 566 (1984), that Court concluded that civil service retirement wa......
-
Martin v. Martin, No. 1240
...benefits Page 708 were not subject to equitable distribution. Bugg v. Bugg, 277 S.C. 270, 286 S.E.2d 135 (1982); Carter v. Carter, 277 S.C. 277, 286 S.E.2d 139 (1982) (dicta); Brown v. Brown, 279 S.C. 116, 302 S.E.2d 860 (1983); Haynes v. Haynes, 279 S.C. 162, 303 S.E.2d 429 (1983); Eichor ......