Cline v. Cline, Opinion No. 2008-UP-267 (S.C. App. 5/16/2008), Opinion No. 2008-UP-267.
| Docket Number | Opinion No. 2008-UP-267. |
| Decision Date | 16 May 2008 |
| Parties | Melissa Burrell Cline, Appellant, v. Thomas A. Cline, Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Page 1
v.
Thomas A. Cline, Respondent.
Appeal From Greenville County Leslie K. Riddle, Family Court Judge.
AFFIRMED
O.W. Bannister, of Greenville, for Appellant.
David Michael Collins, Jr., of Spartanburg, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM:
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial