Cooper v. Cooper

• Decision Date: 27 May 1986
• Docket Number: No. 0750,0750
• Citation: 346 S.E.2d 326,289 S.C. 377
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Judy McNair COOPER, Appellant, v. Charles COOPER, Respondent. . Heard

Page 326

346 S.E.2d 326

289 S.C. 377

Judy McNair COOPER, Appellant, v. Charles COOPER, Respondent.

No. 0750.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard May 27, 1986.

Decided July 7, 1986.

H.T. Abbott, III, Conway, for appellant.

Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Conway, for respondent.

GOOLSBY, Judge:

Judy McNair Cooper appeals from the order of the family court. She charges the trial judge abused his discretion in dividing the marital property between her and her husband Charles Cooper. The wife's specific complaints center on the evaluation placed by the trial judge on the land upon which the marital home is located, the amount awarded her as her equitable interest in the marital home, and the requirement that she be solely responsible for making the monthly payments due on the automobile that the trial judge awarded her in dividing the parties' personal property. We affirm as modified.

1. We find no error in the $10,500 value placed by the trial judge on the land upon which the marital home was built. There is evidence to support this finding.

The husband, who satisfactorily demonstrated familiarity with his property and its value, testified that the land was worth $7,500 an acre. The tract in question contains 1.4 acres.

Obviously, the trial judge simply believed the husband's testimony and arrived at his conclusion concerning the value of the property by multiplying the acreage involved by the husband's figure. In South Carolina, a property owner is ordinarily competent to offer testimony as to value of his property. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Harrelson, 262 S.C. 43, 202 S.E.2d 4 (1974); Rogers v. Rogers, 280 S.C. 205, 311 S.E.2d 743 (Ct.App.1984).

2. We likewise find no error in the failure of the trial judge to award the wife a one-half interest in the marital home.

Although we have jurisdiction in cases of this kind to find facts based on our own view of the preponderance of the evidence, we are not required to disregard the findings of the trial judge who saw and heard the witnesses and was in a better position to evaluate their testimony. Mann v. Walker, 285 S.C. 194, 328 S.E.2d 659 (Ct.App.1985). Determinations regarding the equitable distribution of marital assets are matters that rest largely within the sound discretion of the family court. Simmons v. Simmons, 275 S.C. 41, 267 S.E.2d 427 (1980); Smith v. Smith, 280 S.C. 257, 312 S.E.2d 560 (Ct.App.1984).

Here, the evidence supports the determination made by the trial judge that the husband's material contributions to the acquisition of the marital property somewhat outweighed the wife's during their fifteen-year marriage and thus justified a greater portion thereof being awarded to the husband.

3. We find error, however, in the $10,500 credit given by the trial judge to the husband for the value of the land on which the marital home is located.

Although the evidence shows that the husband acquired the land by gift from his father during the marriage, it also shows, and we so find, that the property lost its nonmarital character and therefore became subject to equitable distribution when the husband, nine years before the parties separated, erected the marital home thereon and thereby used the 1.4-acre tract in support of the marriage. See McNeill v. McNeill, 343 S.E.2d 626 (S.C.1986) (in a domestic case, the Supreme Court's scope of review extends to the finding of facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence); Trimnal v. Trimnal, 287 S.C. 495, 339 S.E.2d 869 (1986) (gift component of an interest in a home acquired by husband prior to marriage viewed as marital property where the gift component commingled with marital property); Hussey v. Hussey, 280 S.C. 418, 312 S.E.2d 267 (Ct.App.1984) (property may lose its nonmarital character when it is utilized by the parties in support of the marriage); Cooksey v. Cooksey, 280 S.C. 347, 352, 312 S.E.2d 581, 585 (Ct.App.1984) ("If inherited property, nonmarital at the time of its acquisition, is utilized by the parties in support of the marriage, it is transmuted into marital property"); cf. Rampey v. Rampey, 286 S.C. 153, 332 S.E.2d 213 (Ct.App.1985) (family farm viewed as marital property where it was transferred by heirs at law from estate of wife's father to wife and husband jointly and wife and husband constructed marital home thereupon); In re Marriage of Lee, 87 Ill.2d 64, 58 Ill.Dec. 779, 430 N.E.2d 1030 (1981) (where there has been a contribution of marital property to nonmarital property the entire property is...