Dearybury v. Dearybury, 25520.
Decision Date | 26 August 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 25520.,25520. |
Citation | 569 S.E.2d 367,351 S.C. 278 |
Parties | Dan Anthony DEARYBURY, Petitioner, v. Wanda Kim Greene DEARYBURY, Respondent. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
351 S.C. 278
569 S.E.2d 367
v.
Wanda Kim Greene DEARYBURY, Respondent
No. 25520.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard June 25, 2002.
Decided August 26, 2002.
Michael L. Rudasill and Richard H. Rhodes, both of Burts, Turner, Rhodes & Thompson, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.
TOAL Chief Justice:
We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in Dearybury v. Dearybury, Op. No.2000-UP-516 (S.C. Ct.App. filed July 6, 2000) to increase the amount of lump sum alimony awarded to respondent (Wife) from $125,000 to $150,000. We reverse.
FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The family court ordered petitioner (Husband) to pay Wife $125,000 in lump sum alimony. The section of the order awarding alimony states that "[i]n addition to other findings [in the] order," the award of alimony was based on the following findings: (1) Wife's monthly expenses for herself and the parties' children, including private school tuition for the children, were more than Husband's and, considering the property distribution aspects of the order and Husband's nonmarital assets, Husband's future monthly expenses should be even less; (2) Husband was being awarded $214,985.19 in nonmarital assets and $310,930.39 in marital assets of which $85,087.34 was either in cash or could be converted to cash; and (3) the unknown nature of Husband's future income and the possibility that he may not be able to make regular alimony payments due to the fact that he was self-employed in a start-up company. The family court also found that alimony awarded to Wife should not be taxable to her or tax deductible for Husband.
Earlier in the order, in a section entitled "Background and Findings Relevant to Most Issues," the family court found the
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Davis
...within the sound discretion of the family court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Dearybury v. Dearybury, 351 S.C. 278, 282, 569 S.E.2d 367, 369 (2002); Sharps v. Sharps, 342 S.C. 71, 79, 535 S.E.2d 913, 917 (2000); Hatfield v. Hatfield, 327 S.C. 360, 364, 489 S.E.2d ......
-
Wooten v. Wooten
...Court has jurisdiction to find the facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Dearybury v. Dearybury, 351 S.C. 278, 569 S.E.2d 367 (2002); Hopkins v. Hopkins, 343 S.C. 301, 540 S.E.2d 454 (2000); Murdock v. Murdock, 338 S.C. 322, 526 S.E.2d 241 (Ct.App.1999)......
-
Hunnicutt v. Hunnicutt
...... family court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of. discretion. Dearybury v. Dearybury , 351 S.C. 278,. 282, 569 S.E.2d 367, 369 (2002). Alimony is a substitute for. ......
-
Doe v. Roe, 4119.
...the family court, this Court may find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Dearybury v. Dearybury, 351 S.C. 278, 569 S.E.2d 367 (2002); Lanier v. Lanier, 364 S.C. 211, 612 S.E.2d 456 (Ct.App.2005); Nasser-Moghaddassi v. Moghaddassi, 364 S.C. 182, 612 S......