Hardin v. Hardin, 1061
| Decision Date | 10 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 1061,1061 |
| Citation | 294 S.C. 402,365 S.E.2d 34 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Edward HARDIN, Appellant, v. Shirley Jean HARDIN, Respondent. . Heard |
Charles W. Blackwell and Brian C. Wilson, both of McMehan & Blackwell, Rock Hill, for appellant.
William G. Rhoden, Gaffney, for respondent.
In this divorce action, the appealed order (1) awarded Shirley Jean Hardin (the wife) $250 per month alimony, and further that the wife "is entitled to live in the home for the duration of her lifetime if she so chooses," (2) required Edward Hardin (the husband) to maintain a $50,000 life insurance policy on his life with the wife as beneficiary, (3) equitably divided certain personal property and awarded the wife a 50 percent interest in the marital home titled in the name of the husband, but required the husband to convey the entire fee to the wife provided the husband retain a 50 percent equitable interest in the home should it be sold and (4) awarded the wife a one-half interest in the proceeds of any life insurance policy the husband owned and might cash in. We affirm and modify the appealed order in part and reverse in part.
The issues of merit presented on appeal are whether the trial judge erred by (1) requiring the husband to convey the entire fee of the marital home to the wife, (2) requiring the husband to maintain a $50,000 life insurance policy with the wife as beneficiary and (3) awarding the wife a one-half interest in the proceeds of any life insurance policy the husband owned and might cash in; without determining the relevant values.
First, the requirement that the husband convey the entire fee of the marital home to the wife creates a possibility that the entire fee of the marital home might be subjected to the lien of judgments against the wife. We therefore modify the appealed order and direct that the husband execute a deed of conveyance of the marital home and that the granting clause of said deed be to Edward Hardin and to Shirley Jean Hardin, their heirs and assigns.
We note that the husband took no exception to the finding that the wife has the right to live in the marital home for the duration of her lifetime if she so chooses; we therefore do not address this holding.
Next, the husband asserts error in the requirement that he acquire a life insurance policy on his life in the amount of $50,000 payable to the wife as beneficiary.
In Fender v. Fender, 256 S.C. 399, 182 S.E.2d 755 (1971), our Supreme Court upheld a requirement by the Family Court that a father in a divorce action maintain a life insurance policy on his life for the benefit of his minor child. Additionally, in Drawdy v. Drawdy, 285 S.C. 159, 328 S.E.2d 133 (Ct.App.1985), this court impliedly recognized the principle that a husband may be required to maintain life insurance to secure the payment of a lump sum alimony award or judgment. Whether the Family Court can impose a similar requirement for the benefit of a dependent spouse to secure the payment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wooten v. Wooten
...(Ct.App.1987) (affirming divorce decree requiring husband to maintain life insurance to secure child support). In Hardin v. Hardin, 294 S.C. 402, 365 S.E.2d 34 (Ct.App.1987), the Court of Appeals in a case of first impression concluded the family court required either specific statutory aut......
-
Gilfillin v. Gilfillin
...to require a payor spouse to secure the payment of periodic alimony beyond the payor spouse's lifetime. See Hardin v. Hardin, 294 S.C. 402, 365 S.E.2d 34 (Ct.App.1987). In Hardin, the Court of Appeals found a family court needed both statutory authority and a finding of special circumstance......
-
Hawkins v. Hawkins
...a policy where the effect is to require the payment of periodic alimony beyond the death of the former spouse. Hardin v. Hardin, 294 S.C. 402, 365 S.E.2d 34, 36 (App.1987); McClung v. McClung, 465 So.2d 637, 638 (Fla.App. 2 Dist.1985); Annot., 59 ALR3d 9, § 5 (1974 & Supp.1997). The rationa......
-
Hickman v. Hickman
...maintain, solely as an incident of periodic support, a life insurance policy naming the dependent spouse as beneficiary. Hardin v. Hardin, 365 S.E.2d 34 (S.Ct.App.1987). There are no special circumstances here that warrant security for the payment of alimony to Mrs. The trial court's order,......