Cooksey v. Cooksey

• Decision Date: 10 February 1984
• Docket Number: No. 0067,0067
• Citation: 312 S.E.2d 581,280 S.C. 347
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Eleanor R. COOKSEY, Respondent, v. Edison M. COOKSEY, Appellant.

Page 581

312 S.E.2d 581

280 S.C. 347

Eleanor R. COOKSEY, Respondent, v. Edison M. COOKSEY, Appellant.

No. 0067.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Feb. 10, 1984.

Ronald W. McKinney and John B. Duggan, of Edwards, Duggan & Reese, Greer, for appellant.

H. Michael Spivey, Mauldin, for respondent.

EN BANC.

PER CURIAM:

In this divorce action initiated by Mrs. Cooksey, Mr. Cooksey appeals from the provisions of the family court's order distributing the marital property and awarding Mrs. Cooksey attorney's fees of $250. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand.

Mrs. Cooksey petitioned for a divorce, alimony, attorney's fees and an equitable division of the property. Mr. Cooksey counterclaimed for a divorce; an equitable distribution of the marital assets; an award of his inheritance of $22,711.67; the imposition of a resulting or constructive trust upon Florida real property titled in his wife's name, or its proceeds; and an accounting for and division of the proceeds of their joint bank accounts.

The family court granted Mrs. Cooksey a divorce on the ground of a year's separation. In effecting an equitable distribution of the marital property, the court ordered that the two marital homes be sold and the proceeds shared equally. The court also found that Mr. Cooksey was entitled to a $10,000 equitable interest in the proceeds from the sale of the Florida realty which had been titled in Mrs. Cooksey's name alone. Finding Mrs. Cooksey to be entitled to reimbursement of $7,746, the court ordered that Mr. Cooksey's $10,000 interest in the Florida realty proceeds be offset by this amount. Mrs. Cooksey also was awarded attorney's fees of $250. The court found that Mr. Cooksey, however, was not entitled to recoup his $22,711.67 inheritance from his father's estate.

We first review Mr. Cooksey's assertion that the family court erred in awarding him only a $10,000 equitable interest in the proceeds from the sale of the Florida real property. He contends that the evidence clearly shows he was entitled to a greater share in the property based on his contributions to its acquisition. We agree.

Generally, in determining the proper portion of marital property that is owned in equity by each spouse, the family court must weigh the relative incomes and material contributions of the parties. Burgess v. Burgess, 277 S.C. 283, 286 S.E.2d 142 (1982); Wilson v. Wilson, 270 S.C. 216, 241 S.E.2d 566 (1978). Though enunciated in special equity cases, this principle applies with equal validity to equitable distribution actions.

A review of the evidence clearly establishes that Mr. and Mrs. Cooksey's relative incomes and material contributions to the acquisition of the marital property were at least equal. During the 10-year marriage, the parties worked together driving a long distance tractor-trailer truck. From their joint earnings, they bought a 10-acre tract of land in Florida. The $4,072 down payment was made with a check drawn on their joint account. The property was titled in both their names. When they sold five acres of the tract, they used part of the money to retire the mortgage on the land and deposited the remainder in their joint account.

Thereafter, the Cookseys placed title to the remaining five acres in Mrs. Cooksey's maiden name. Mr. Cooksey claims this was done to prevent a creditor from securing a lien on the property. Mrs. Cooksey asserts the property was transferred to her as a gift to defeat the future inheritance claim of Mr. Cooksey's son. In any event, Mrs Cooksey sold the property for $33,500. She accepted a mortgage of $25,100 and received the remainder of the purchase price in cash. She deposited the cash proceeds in a joint account.

After the Cooksey's separation, Mrs. Cooksey received an interest payment of $2,384.50 on the mortgage. Later, she sold the mortgage for $22,000. Mrs. Cooksey refused to share any of this amount with Mr. Cooksey.

Based on this evidence, the family court awarded Mr. Cooksey a $10,000 equitable interest in the proceeds from this property totaling $24,384.50. It then subjected his interest to a $2,000 offset in repayment to Mrs. Cooksey of one-half the down payment for purchase of the land, which the court found Mrs. Cooksey to have made from her separate funds.

In an equity action, tried by a judge alone, we may determine the facts in keeping with our view of the preponderance of the evidence. Barden v. Barden, 278 S.C. 672, 301 S.E.2d 141 (1983). We find from the preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Cooksey's contribution to the acquisition and maintenance of this Florida property was at least equal to that of Mrs. Cooksey. Thus, we hold that he was entitled to receive one-half of the proceeds from its sale, or $12,192.25.

Nor do we find merit in Mrs. Cooksey's contention that the land and its proceeds should be hers solely because it was given to her as a gift by Mr. Cooksey. We find credible, as did the family court, Mr. Cooksey's testimony that he transferred title to Mrs. Cooksey to prevent the attachment of a creditor's lien. Thus, there was no intent on his part to make a gift to Mrs. Cooksey. Even if we grant, however, that a gift was made, interspousal gifts are subject to equitable distribution upon the dissolution of the marriage. Burgess v. Burgess, supra.

In addition, we find from the preponderance of the evidence that Mrs. Cooksey did not make the down payment for purchase of the land from her separate funds. Mrs. Cooksey admitted on cross-examination that both the initial payment and subsequent monthly payments were all made from joint funds. Thus, the court erred in requiring Mr. Cooksey to pay Mrs. Cooksey $2,000 as reimbursement for one-half the down payment of $4,072.

Although the family court did not give specific reasons to support its unequal distribution of the proceeds from the sale of the Florida land, Mr. Cooksey asserts that it is clear from the record that the court sought to penalize him for alleged "economic misconduct". This "conduct" consisted of transferring the property to Mrs. Cooksey to evade a creditor's claim. There is support for Mr. Cooksey's assertion in the language of the order. The court stated:

... I am particularly disturbed by [Mr. Cooksey's] blatant attempt to avoid a creditor. I do find that [he] had an equitable interest ... of $10,000.00. I feel that this is a fair figure due to the conduct of the parties....

Assuming economic misconduct against a third person was shown, the appellate courts of this State have never recognized it as a factor to be considered in determining the equitable distribution of marital property. See Simmons v. Simmons, 275 S.C. 41, 267 S.E.2d 427 (1980); Barden v. Barden, supra. We see no reason why conduct directed against a person unconnected with the marriage which in no way diminishes the marital property should be relevant to equitable distribution. We therefore find error in the court's consideration of Mr. Cooksey's "economic misconduct."

We next consider Mr. Cooksey's contention that the court erred by abdicating its responsibility to determine whether Mrs....