Cline v. Cline
| Decision Date | 16 May 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2008-UP-267 |
| Parties | Melissa Burrell Cline, Appellant, v. Thomas A. Cline, Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Heard April 9, 2008
Appeal From Greenville County Leslie K. Riddle, Family Court Judge
O.W Bannister, of Greenville, for Appellant.
David Michael Collins, Jr., of Spartanburg, for Respondent.
In this domestic action, Melissa Burrell Cline (Wife) appeals the findings of the family court arguing: (1) the court erred in holding repayment of marital debt did not include interest (2) the court erred in finding 1.1 acres of nonmarital property had been transmuted into marital property; and (3) the court abused its discretion in denying Wife alimony. We affirm.
Wife and Thomas A. Cline (Husband) began dating when Wife was in the eighth grade. After graduating high school, Wife and Husband married on April 24, 1993. Wife and Husband have two children who were respectively nine years old and four years old at the time of the final hearing.
In anticipation of marriage, Wife and Husband purchased a mobile home which they placed on land given to Wife by her grandfather. Husband assisted the grandfather in selecting clearing, and preparing the land in order to place the mobile home. The couple named the road used to access the land T&M Cline Drive, ” otherwise known as Tommy and Melissa Cline Drive.” Additionally, the land was used as collateral to secure the loan for the mobile home. During the course of their marriage, Wife and Husband fully paid for the mobile home and continued to make improvements to the land.
Due to poor financial history, Husband and Wife were unable to obtain loans from a bank. As a result, they borrowed money from Linda Bradley, Wife's mother, throughout the marriage. Although no signed documents indicate any loans or a promise to repay the debt, neither Husband nor Wife dispute receiving loans from Bradley. [1] Instead, the parties dispute the amount owed. According to Wife, each time a loan was received from Bradley, Bradley would establish a payment schedule with interest. However, Husband was unaware of any payment schedule or the accrual of interest because Wife using marital funds, handled the payments.
Prior to having children, Wife worked full-time making ten dollars an hour. Following the birth of their first child, Wife continued to work on a part-time basis. After the birth of their second child, Wife left work to care for her children. At some point during the marriage, Wife attended technical college for one and one-half years, but at the final hearing she claimed going back to school was not an option. According to Husband, Wife refused to work outside of the home. At the time of the hearing, in addition to watching her own children, Wife provided day care services for four additional children at the rate of $20.00 to $25.00 per day. Husband who at the time of the hearing was on short-term disability, has been employed by BMW since 1999 and makes a base pay of $25.15 per hour.
During the course of their marriage, Husband and Wife separated on three occasions as a result of Husband's extramarital affair with another woman. The final separation occurred on February 2, 2005. On May 24, 2005, Wife filed for divorce on the grounds of adultery and on September 19, 2006, the family court issued its final order and decree of divorce awarding full custody of the children to Wife. For the purpose of determining child support, the family court imputed the sum of $8.00 per hour to Wife, which equates to a gross monthly income of $1, 386.00. Husband's gross monthly income was calculated at $3, 266.00, which was reflective of his disability pay. Husband was ordered to pay child support of $1, 121.00 per month. Wife was awarded full ownership and possession of the marital home but did not receive an alimony award. The family court found the land on which the marital home sits had been transmuted into marital property. This appeal followed.
In appeals from the family court, the appellate court has the authority to find the facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence.” Ex parte Morris, 367 S.C. 56, 61, 624 S.E.2d 649, 652 (2006). However, this broad scope of review does not require the appellate court to disregard the findings of the family court. Wooten v. Wooten, 364 S.C. 532, 540, 615 S.E.2d 98, 102 (2005). Neither is the appellate court required to ignore the fact that the family court judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and to assign comparative weight to their testimony. Latimer v. Farmer, 360 S.C. 375, 380, 602 S.E.2d 32, 34 (2004). Questions concerning alimony rest with the sound discretion of the [family] court, whose conclusions will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” Kelley v. Kelley, 324 S.C. 481, 485, 477 S.E.2d 727, 729 (Ct. App. 1996). The family court abuses its discretion when factual findings are without evidentiary support or a ruling is based upon an error of law.” Smith v. Doe, 366 S.C. 469, 474, 623 S.E.2d 370, 372 (2005).
Wife argues the family court erred in its calculation of marital debt because Husband and Wife were expected to repay the principal owed to Bradley with interest. We disagree.
Debts incurred for marital purposes are subject to equitable distribution. S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-472(13) (Supp. 2006). Section 20-7-472 creates a rebuttable presumption that a debt of either spouse incurred prior to marital litigation is a marital debt and must be factored into the totality of equitable apportionment.” Jenkins v. Jenkins, 345 S.C. 88, 103, 545 S.E.2d 531, 539 (Ct. App. 2001). Additionally, loans from close family members must be carefully scrutinized for legitimacy. Id. at 104, 545 S.E.2d at 539.
Our review of the record suggests that Bradley gave Husband and Wife approximately $41, 000 with the expectation that she would be repaid. Husband, Wife, and Bradley testified that Bradley made loans to the parties throughout the marriage. Husband and Wife presented testimony that between $20, 000 and $31, 000 had been paid back to Bradley. Both Bradley and Wife stated the loans were interest bearing. However, neither Wife nor Bradley introduced into evidence a promissory note or any other document as proof the payment was an interest bearing loan. Instead, the record reveals the only document indicating a payment schedule, including a 7.5% interest rate, was created right before the scheduled trial. Accordingly, the family court did not abuse its discretion in excluding interest when calculating the remaining balance of the marital debt only for the purposes of equitable distribution. [2]
Wife asserts the family court erred in finding the 1.1 acres of land, a premarital gift, was transmuted into marital property. We disagree.
Property acquired by either party before the marriage is nonmarital property. S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-473(2) (Supp. 2006). While not ordinarily subject to division, a gift of real estate to one spouse may lose its nonmarital character if used in support of the marriage or otherwise utilized in such a manner as to evidence intent by the parties to make it marital property. Trimnal v. Trimnal, 287 S.C. 495, 497-98, 339 S.E.2d 869, 870 (1986). Property that is nonmarital at the time of its acquisition may be transmuted if it: (1) becomes so commingled with marital property as to be untraceable; (2) is titled jointly; or (3) is utilized by the parties in support of the marriage or in some other manner so as to evidence an intent by the parties to make it marital property. Id.
As a general rule, transmutation is a matter of intent to be gleaned from the facts of each case. ” Johnson v. Johnson, 296 S.C. 289, 295, 372 S.E.2d 107, 110 (Ct. App. 1988). The spouse claiming transmutation must produce objective evidence showing that, during the marriage, the parties themselves regarded the property as the common property of the marriage. Id. at 295, 372 S.E.2d at 110-11. If one spouse carries this burden, that spouse establishes a prima facie case the property is marital property. Id. at 295, 372 S.E.2d at 110. If the opposing spouse then wishes to claim that the property so identified is not part of the marital estate, the opposing spouse has the burden of presenting evidence to establish its nonmarital character. Id.
Evidence that nonmarital property has been transmuted may include placing the property in joint names, transferring the property to the other spouse as a gift, using the property exclusively for marital purposes, commingling the property with marital property, using marital funds to build equity in the property, or exchanging the property for marital property.” Id. at 295, 372 S.E.2d at 111. However, the mere use of separate property to support the marriage, without some additional evidence of intent to treat it as property of the marriage, is not sufficient to establish transmutation. Id. at 295-96, 372 S.E.2d at 111.
South Carolina courts have found sufficient evidence to establish transmutation where separate property is used to support the marital home. Recently our court held land acquired by husband by gift lost its nonmarital character when husband and wife erected the marital home on the land. Simpson v Simpson, Op. No. 4341 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Feb. 8, 2008) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 7 at 71) (citing Cooper v. Cooper, 289 S.C. 377, 380, 346 S.E.2d 326, 328 (Ct. App. 1986)). In Simpson, husband acquired land by gift during the marriage. Thereafter,...
To continue reading
Request your trial