Hagood v. Hagood
| Decision Date | 17 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2016-001898,Opinion No. 5664 |
| Citation | 427 S.C. 642,832 S.E.2d 609 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Melissa Leaphart HAGOOD, Appellant, v. James Buckner HAGOOD, Defendant. Melody "Suzie" Hagood Sharpe, Third Party Defendant. Of whom James Buckner Hagood and Melody "Suzie" Hagood Sharpe are the Respondents. |
James Ross Snell, Jr. and Vicki D. Koutsogiannis, both of Law Office of James R. Snell, Jr., LLC, of Lexington, for Appellant.
Peter George Currence, of McDougall, Self, Currence & McLeod, LLP, of Columbia, and Carrie Hall Tanner, of Speedy, Tanner, Atkinson & Cook, LLC, of Camden, for Respondents.
In this appeal from a divorce decree, Melissa Hagood (Wife) argues the family court erred in (1) characterizing the majority of the estate as the nonmarital property of James Hagood (Husband), (2) equitably apportioning the majority of the marital property to Husband, and (3) refusing to award her alimony. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Wife and Husband married on August 8, 2004, and separated April 17, 2014. At the time of the separation, Wife was fifty years old and Husband was sixty-five years old. The parties share one child (Child), born in 2002. Husband has three grown children from a previous marriage.
In 1996, before the couple met, Husband inherited several large tracts of land in and around Blythewood, South Carolina, from his father. The properties included the following: a doublewide mobile home located on a one-acre tract of land at 837 Langford Road (837 Langford Road); 142 acres located at 1521 Muller Road (the Muller Road Property); and 159 acres on Langford Road (the Langford Road Property). Each of these properties were titled in Husband's name throughout the marriage, with the exception of the doublewide mobile home titled in his sister's name. When the parties met in 2002, Husband was living in the doublewide mobile home at 837 Langford Road. In December 2002, Wife and Child moved into the mobile home with Husband and lived there until July 2009.
In 2007, Husband received approximately $3.6 million from the sale of the Langford Road Property. In that same transaction, Husband acquired an additional 8.1 acres on Muller Road, near the Muller Road Property. Soon thereafter, Husband used $495,000 in proceeds from the sale of the Langford Road Property to construct a new home on the Muller Road Property. The home was completed in the summer of 2009, and the couple lived there continuously until their separation in April 2014.
The marriage began to deteriorate in the spring of 2014. On April 28, 2014, Wife initiated divorce proceedings against Husband, requesting custody of Child, child support, alimony, equitable division, and other related relief. By administrative order, the family court bifurcated the merits hearing in order to address the financial and custody issues separately. The family court held a hearing on June 15 and 16, 2016, to address the financial issues. At issue was the character, equitable division, and apportionment of: (1) the property and mobile home located at 837 Langford Road; (2) the marital home and Muller Road Property; (3) the additional 8.1 acres on Muller Road; (4) several investment accounts; (5) two collectable vehicles—a green Corvette and a 1969 Camaro; (6) a 2014 Jeep Wrangler; (7) a horse named "Chevy"; and (8) two tractors. In addition, Wife requested alimony of "whatever the [c]ourt deemed necessary," and both parties requested attorney's fees. Neither party requested a specific percentage of the marital estate.
The family court issued a final order and divorce decree on August 2, 2016, granting Husband and Wife a no-fault divorce based on one year's continuous separation. In its order, the family court denied Wife's request for alimony; held the entirety of the real property and investment accounts were Husband's nonmarital property; and apportioned the horse, the John Deer tractor, the Jeep, and the 1969 Camaro to Husband. This appeal followed.
The appellate court reviews decisions of the family court de novo. Lewis v. Lewis , 392 S.C. 381, 386, 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011). The appellate court generally defers to the findings of the family court regarding credibility because the family court is in a better position to observe the witnesses and their demeanor. Id. at 389, 709 S.E.2d at 653. The party contesting the family court's decision bears the burden of demonstrating the family court's factual findings are not supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Barrow v. Barrow , 394 S.C. 603, 609, 716 S.E.2d. 302, 305 (Ct. App. 2011) (citations omitted).
Wife argues the family court erred in failing to categorize and apportion as marital property: (1) the mobile home and property located at 837 Langford Road, (2) the marital home and the Muller Road Property (3) the investment and bank accounts, (4) the green Corvette, and (5) the John Deer tractor.
Section 20-3-630(A) of the South Carolina Code (2014) defines marital property as "all real and personal property which has been acquired by the parties during the marriage and which is owned as of the date of filing or commencement of marital litigation ... regardless of how legal title is held." Section 20-3-630(A) specifies the following is nonmarital property:
S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-630(A). Nonmarital property may be transmuted into marital property if: "(1) it becomes so commingled with marital property as to be untraceable; (2) it is jointly titled; or (3) it is utilized by the parties in support of the marriage ... so as to evidence an intent by the parties to make it marital property." Jenkins v. Jenkins , 345 S.C. 88, 98, 545 S.E.2d 531, 537 (Ct. App. 2001) (citing Pool v. Pool , 321 S.C. 84, 86, 467 S.E.2d 753, 756 (Ct. App. 1996) ). "Whether transmutation of separate property into marital property has occurred ‘is a matter of intent to be gleaned from the facts of each case.’ " Simpson v. Simpson , 377 S.C. 527, 538, 660 S.E.2d 278, 284 (Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Johnson v. Johnson , 296 S.C. 289, 295, 372 S.E.2d 107, 110 (Ct. App. 1988) ).
"The spouse claiming transmutation bears the burden of producing objective evidence showing that, during the marriage, the parties themselves regarded the property as the common property of the marriage."
Greene v. Greene , 351 S.C. 329, 338, 569 S.E.2d 393, 398 (Ct. App. 2002) (citations omitted). "The mere use of separate property to support the marriage, without some additional evidence of intent to treat the property as marital, is not sufficient to establish transmutation." Id .
The family court found all real property in existence at the time of the divorce was Husband's nonmarital property. Wife argues the evidence presented at trial shows the parties used the properties in support of the marriage in such a way as to transmute it to marital property.
As previously noted, Husband inherited the 837 Langford Road Property in 1996. He was living in a mobile home on the property with his sister and his daughter from a previous marriage when the parties met in 2002. Husband purchased the mobile home with proceeds from a certificate of deposit (CD) he had during his first marriage, but titled the mobile home in his sister's name. Wife and Child moved into the mobile home with Husband in 2002, prior to their 2004 marriage, and lived there with him until they moved into their new home in July 2009. Wife testified she, along with Husband, made improvements to the property such as installing insulation, working on the well, putting up a fence, and taking care of the dogs.
According to the record, the 837 Langford Road Property remained solely titled in Husband's name and remained traceable as nonmarital property throughout the marriage. Although Wife assisted in the care of the property, she did not make any significant contributions to this property. While Husband and Wife lived in the mobile home, Husband's sister owned it. Accordingly, Wife did not meet her burden to prove the 837 Langford Road Property transmuted to marital property.
Wife also claims the marital home and the Muller Road Property are marital property. Husband inherited the Muller Road Property from his father prior to the marriage and chose it as the site to build the marital home. Husband deposited $495,000 of the proceeds from the sale of the nonmarital Langford Road Property into a separate account exclusively for the construction of the home. Husband used this account to pay for the construction of the home and the work on the surrounding land. Furthermore, Husband titled the home and property in his name only.
Wife acknowledged at the final hearing that Husband paid to construct the home. Nevertheless, she claims the marital home and the Muller Road property transmuted to marital property because the parties utilized them in support of the marriage. Wife testified she was involved in the planning and building of the home, such as selecting the house plan, brick, and roof. She stated she participated in the landscaping and removed rocks from the property in preparation for building the home. Wife also stated she was involved in the continued maintenance of the home, especially after Husband became ill. She planted and maintained a garden, maintained the creek, and insulated pipes.
Transmutation is a matter of intent of the parties to treat the property as common property of the marriage. Johnson , 296...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Expansion of Elec. Filing Pilot Program - Court of Common Pleas, Appellate Case No. 2015-002439
...of South Carolina.August 28, 2019427 S.C. 578 ORDERPursuant to the provisions of Article V, Section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution,832 S.E.2d 609 IT IS ORDERED that the Pilot Program for the Electronic Filing (E-Filing) of documents in the Court of Common Pleas, which was established ......