Casey v. Casey
| Decision Date | 08 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 22783,22783 |
| Citation | 293 S.C. 503,362 S.E.2d 6 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Joyce M. CASEY, Respondent, v. John William CASEY, Petitioner. . Heard |
Randall M. Chastain and Isadore E. Lourie of Lourie, Curlee, Barrett & Popowski, Columbia, for petitioner.
Harvey L. Golden, Columbia, for respondent.
Certiorari was granted in this divorce case to review the decision of the Court of Appeals reported at 289 S.C. 462, 346 S.E.2d 726 (Ct.App.1986). We reverse.
Petitioner (Husband) and respondent (Wife) were married in 1960. In 1976, Husband purchased a retail fireworks business from his father and has operated it as a sole proprietorship. Wife worked in the business until 1980. The continued success of the business can be attributed largely to Husband's lobbying efforts to keep the sale of fireworks legal in South Carolina.
At the time of the divorce, the tangible assets of the fireworks business consisted of some office fixtures and $6,000 worth of inventory. Wife's expert witness, Dr. Oliver Wood, testified the business's value exceeded that of the tangible assets, but he was unable to place a value on the goodwill.
In equitably dividing the parties' marital property, the family court awarded Wife a 21% interest in the goodwill of the fireworks business and valued her share at $10,500. The Court of Appeals held that goodwill was a marital asset subject to equitable division, but reversed the family court's valuation and remanded for redetermination of Wife's interest.
This Court granted a writ of certiorari to consider two questions:
(1) Was the Court of Appeals correct in holding that goodwill is subject to equitable distribution?
(2) Was the Court of Appeals correct in remanding only a portion of the equitable distribution award without considering the impact of that determination on the remainder of the equitable distribution award and on alimony?
Courts from other jurisdictions are divided as to whether goodwill is marital property divisible upon divorce. See Annot., 52 A.L.R.3d 1344 (1973); 24 Am.Jur.2d Divorce and Separation § 899 (1983). The issue is one of first impression in this state.
When the goodwill in a business is dependent upon the owner's future earnings, it is too speculative for inclusion in the marital estate. See Holbrook v. Holbrook, 103 Wis.2d 327, 309 N.W.2d 343 (Ct.App.1981); Nail v. Nail, 486 S.W.2d 761 (Tex.1972). Moreover, these future earnings are accounted for in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Moore, Appellate Case No. 2013–001359.
...in South CarolinaThis Court first considered whether goodwill should be treated as marital property in Casey v. Casey (Casey II ), 293 S.C. 503, 362 S.E.2d 6 (1987) (reviewing a court of appeals' decision involving the valuation and equitable division of a retail fireworks business operated......
-
Keane v. Lowcountry Pediatrics, P.A.
...the doctor's future earnings, which are totally dependent upon the professional. Id. at 359, 384 S.E.2d at 745 (citing Casey v. Casey, 293 S.C. 503, 362 S.E.2d 6 (1987) (acknowledging the speculative nature of goodwill being dependent upon future earnings)). The supreme court reasoned that ......
-
Hickum v. Hickum
...have consistently held, however, the goodwill of a business is too speculative to be included in the marital estate. Casey v. Casey, 293 S.C. 503, 362 S.E.2d 6 (1987).1 I do not agree with the majority's reliance on Shannon because that case did not address the exceptions contained in S.C.C......
-
Donahue v. Donahue
...distributed. The issue of whether goodwill is subject to equitable distribution was first addressed by this Court in Casey v. Casey, 293 S.C. 503, 362 S.E.2d 6 (1987). In Casey, we recognized the speculative nature of goodwill, which is dependent upon an owner's future earnings, and held th......