Croom v. Croom, No. 1669
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 406 S.E.2d 381,305 S.C. 158 |
| Parties | Charles E. CROOM, Jr., Respondent-Appellant, v. Theodosia S. CROOM, Appellant-Respondent. . Heard |
| Decision Date | 18 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 1669 |
Page 381
v.
Theodosia S. CROOM, Appellant-Respondent.
Decided June 10, 1991.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 5, 1991.
Certiorari Denied Sept. 24, 1991.
Peter M. Perrill, Rock Hill, for appellant-respondent.
Tony M. Jones, of Elrod & Jones, Rock Hill, for respondent-appellant.
PER CURIAM:
[305 S.C. 159] Charles E. Croom, Jr., commenced this action to terminate or reduce alimony payments to his former wife, Theodosia S. Croom. The family court refused to terminate alimony, but did reduce it, based on a finding of changed circumstances. Theodosia appeals the reduction of alimony. Charles cross appeals the refusal to terminate alimony. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On July 1, 1986, Charles and Theodosia entered into an integrated property settlement and support agreement incident to a marital separation. The agreement was drafted by Charles's lawyer. The agreement recited that the parties had agreed to live separate and apart. They both agreed that either might date and that neither
Page 382
would bring a divorce action against the other upon the ground of adultery. The agreement provided for a division of certain property of the marriage. It further provided that Charles would pay Theodosia $25,000.00 a year in alimony, terminable upon his death or her death or remarriage. Alimony was to be periodically increased or decreased in proportion to changes in the Cost of Living Index. The agreement specified that it would be submitted to the Family Court of York County to be approved by the court and merged into an appropriate judicial order. The agreement finally provided that the terms and conditions of the agreement and any court order approving it "shall not be modifiable by the parties or any court without written consent of the Husband and Wife."By an order of the family court filed July 3, 1986, the agreement was approved and adopted as the order of the court. With the written consent of Charles and Theodosia, the court filed a second order on November 14, 1986, adopting a further agreement completing the division of the marital property. This second agreement and order did not affect the provisions concerning alimony. It, like the first agreement and order, stated that the agreement and order were not modifiable by the parties or any court without written consent of the Husband and Wife.
Charles and Theodosia were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Emery v. Smith, No. 3870.
...terms become a part of the decree and are binding on the parties and the court." Moseley at 353, 306 S.E.2d at 627; accord Croom v. Croom, 305 S.C. 158, 161, 406 S.E.2d 381, 383 (Ct.App.1991). Thereafter, the agreement, as part of the court order, is fully subject to the family court's auth......
-
Gartside v. Gartside, No. 4537.
...to provide the ex-spouse a substitute for the support 677 S.E.2d 625 that was incident to the former marital relationship. Croom v. Croom, 305 S.C. 158, 160, 406 S.E.2d 381, 382 (Ct.App.1991). The question of whether to increase or decrease alimony based on a finding of changed circumstance......
-
Rish v. Rish, 5884
...v. Hammer, 399 S.C. 100, 106, 730 S.E.2d 874, 877 (Ct. App. 2012) (citing Moseley, 279 S.C. at 353, 306 S.E.2d at 627). In Croom v. Croom, 305 S.C. 158, 159-61, 406 S.E.2d 381, 382-83 (Ct. App. 1991), this court found the family court could not modify an alimony obligation because the court......
-
Rish v. Rish, Appellate Case No. 2019-000504
..., 399 S.C. 100, 106, 730 S.E.2d 874, 877 (Ct. App. 2012) (citing Moseley , 279 S.C. at 353, 306 S.E.2d at 627 ). In Croom v. Croom , 305 S.C. 158, 159, 406 S.E.2d 381, 382-83 (Ct. App. 1991), this court found the family court could not modify an alimony obligation because the court-adopted ......
-
Emery v. Smith, No. 3870.
...terms become a part of the decree and are binding on the parties and the court." Moseley at 353, 306 S.E.2d at 627; accord Croom v. Croom, 305 S.C. 158, 161, 406 S.E.2d 381, 383 (Ct.App.1991). Thereafter, the agreement, as part of the court order, is fully subject to the family court's auth......
-
Gartside v. Gartside, No. 4537.
...to provide the ex-spouse a substitute for the support 677 S.E.2d 625 that was incident to the former marital relationship. Croom v. Croom, 305 S.C. 158, 160, 406 S.E.2d 381, 382 (Ct.App.1991). The question of whether to increase or decrease alimony based on a finding of changed circumstance......
-
Rish v. Rish, 5884
...v. Hammer, 399 S.C. 100, 106, 730 S.E.2d 874, 877 (Ct. App. 2012) (citing Moseley, 279 S.C. at 353, 306 S.E.2d at 627). In Croom v. Croom, 305 S.C. 158, 159-61, 406 S.E.2d 381, 382-83 (Ct. App. 1991), this court found the family court could not modify an alimony obligation because the court......
-
Rish v. Rish, Appellate Case No. 2019-000504
..., 399 S.C. 100, 106, 730 S.E.2d 874, 877 (Ct. App. 2012) (citing Moseley , 279 S.C. at 353, 306 S.E.2d at 627 ). In Croom v. Croom , 305 S.C. 158, 159, 406 S.E.2d 381, 382-83 (Ct. App. 1991), this court found the family court could not modify an alimony obligation because the court-adopted ......