Edwards v. Edwards, 19083
| Decision Date | 20 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 19083,19083 |
| Citation | 254 S.C. 466,176 S.E.2d 123 |
| Parties | Nellie Varner EDWARDS, Respondent, v. Ray L. EDWARDS, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Frank Sawyer, James J. Raman, Spartanburg, for appellant.
James R. Turner, Spartanburg, for respondent.
The respondent-wife was granted a divorce from her husband, the appellant, under a decree of The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Spartanburg County (now designated The Family Court). Among other provisions, the decree required the appellant to convey to his wife a house and lot occupied by her and their minor children and one of two cemetery lots, the title to which was in his name. Appellant refused to convey the realty and he was ordered confined in the county jail for a period of six (6) months for his wilful failure to comply with such provisions of the decree, but was given twenty-four (24) hours within which to purge himself of contempt by transferring the property as previously ordered. Appellant has prosecuted this appeal from the order adjudging him in contempt. Further proceedings in the lower court were stayed by the deposit with the clerk of court of instruments conveying the property to respondent as permitted by Section 7--416 of the 1962 Code of Laws.
The questions to be decided concern (1) the sufficiency of the findings to support the order confining appellant to jail and (2) the jurisdiction of the court to order appellant to convey the real estate to his wife.
Appellant takes the position, first, that the order directing his confinement in jail was fatally defective because there was no finding of contempt. This contention is without merit.
It is elementary that before a sentence can be imposed for contempt there must be a finding that the person charged was guilty of conduct constituting a contempt, and the record must be clear and specific as to the acts or conduct upon which such finding is based.
The present order clearly set forth that the appellant was charged with contempt for a violation of the previous order of the court in that he failed to convey the realty as directed. His sole defense to the failure to transfer the property was that the court was without jurisdiction to order it. While the factual recitals in the order contained no specific statement that the appellant was found guilty of contempt, the ordering paragraph found him guilty of conduct constituting contempt when it directed his confinement in the county jail for a period of six (6) months 'for his wilful failure to comply with the order of the court' and was 'given twenty-four (24) hours within which to purge himself of contempt by transferring ownership of the property as required by the decree.'
The order specifically states that sentence was imposed for appellant's wilful disobedience of the prior decree of the court. Such conduct constituted contempt. Long v. McMillan, 226 S.C. 598, 86 S.E.2d 477.
Since the order found appellant guilty of conduct constituting contempt, the failure to specifically so characterize it by name did not render the order defective. The description of the conduct of which appellant was found guilty is of controlling importance and not the name by which it was characterized.
Finally, appellant contends that the court was without jurisdiction to order him to convey the real estate to his wife. His position is that, while the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Spartanburg had jurisdiction to grant divorces and alimony, it had no authority to order the transfer of his property to his wife as an incident to such jurisdiction. We do not reach the jurisdictional question raised and may assume the correctness of appellant's position. The order directing the transfer of the property was issued at the instance of appellant in return for other concessions in his favor and he will not be permitted, under such circumstances, to now deny its validity.
The order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Turner
...; Security–First Nat'l Bank of Los Angeles v. North Dakota Children's Home Soc'y, 85 N.W.2d 553, 563 (N.D.1957) ; Edwards v. Edwards, 254 S.C. 466, 176 S.E.2d 123, 125 (1970) ; Svatonsky v. Svatonsky, 63 Wash.2d 902, 389 P.2d 663, 665 (1964) ; McDougall v. McDougall, 961 P.2d 382, 384 (Wyo.......
-
Cheap-O's Truck Stop, Inc. v. Cloyd
...held in contempt, the record must be clear and specific as to the acts or conduct upon which such finding is based. Edwards v. Edwards, 254 S.C. 466, 176 S.E.2d 123 (1970); Bigham v. Bigham, 264 S.C. 101, 212 S.E.2d 594 . . . . . Compensatory contempt is a money award for the plaintiff when......
-
Turner v. Turner
...1997); Security-First Nat'l Bank of Los Angeles v. North Dakota Children's Home Soc'y, 85 N.W.2d 553, 563 (N.D. 1957); Edwards v. Edwards, 176 S.E.2d 123, 125 (S.C. 1970); Svatonsky v. Svatonsky, 389 P.2d 663, 665 (Wash. 1964); McDougall v. McDougall, 961 P.2d 382, 384 (Wyo. 1998) Black v. ......
-
Kosciusko v. Parham
...challenging the validity of an order or judgment, a party must accept the benefits of the void judgment. See Edwards v. Edwards , 254 S.C. 466, 470, 176 S.E.2d 123, 125 (1970) ("Since he proposed the transfer of the property and has accepted the benefits accruing to him therefrom , he is no......