Haselwood v. Sullivan, 0267
Decision Date | 01 August 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 0267,0267 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Jane Sullivan HASELWOOD, Appellant, v. Louis Gray SULLIVAN, II, Respondent. . Heard |
Herman E. Cox, Greenville, for appellant.
J.D. Todd, Jr., Greenville, for respondent.
Appellant Haselwood, former wife of the respondent husband, (Sullivan) brought this action asking (1) for judgment against her former husband for past due alimony and child support, (2) that an income tax refund be added to the alimony and support arrearage and (3) that the husband be held in contempt for noncompliance with a previous order requiring her husband to maintain certain life insurance policies and furnish proof thereof to Haselwood. The trial judge denied the relief sought. We agree and affirm.
By decree dated March 16, 1978, the parties were divorced and custody of the children, support and alimony payments awarded Haselwood. By subsequent order of March 18, 1980, the support and alimony payments were reduced. As to past due alimony and support, the March 18, 1980, order in pertinent part provided:
(4) PRESENT ARREARAGES: It is undisputed that the Plaintiff is presently in arrears in both support and alimony through 29 February 1980 in the alleged amount of Eight Thousand Two Hundred and No/100 ($8,200.00) Dollars. Collection of this arrearage shall, however, be held in abeyance until such time as the Plaintiff may miss a support and alimony payment as has been set forth in this Order. So long as the Plaintiff remains current with the support and alimony payments required by this Order, then the arrearage amount shall remain in abeyance. If, however, at any time in the future, the Plaintiff shall miss a payment in accordance with this Order, then the Defendant may forthwith bring action to enforce all arrearages then due and shall be entitled to a judgment for any arrearage which may be due at that time. Likewise, the Defendant shall not be precluded from bringing an action in the future should there be a substantial change in circumstance and condition of the Plaintiff's finicial [sic] level of income and/or assets.
No appeal was taken from this order of March 18, 1980.
On appeal Haselwood asserts that she is entitled to an order for judgment for the alimony and support arrearage. Our courts have yet to address directly whether past due alimony constitutes a judgment lien; for cases from other jurisdictions see West's Southeastern Digest, Divorce, Key No. 256. We need not reach that issue in this case. The March 18, 1980, order in effect provided that the collection of the arrearage would be held in abeyance until such time as the plaintiff may miss a support and alimony payment. The trial court found that the husband had not missed a support or alimony payment because they had all been made within the month that they were due. The trial court found that this was substantial compliance but he also provided that in the future all payments must be made by the fifteenth of each month. Under the circumstances, the effect of this order is to hold in abeyance execution and levy on any judgment which might exist for the past due alimony and/or hold in abeyance any right to have the past due alimony ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Floyd v. Floyd
...of the trial judge, which will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is without evidentiary support." Haselwood v. Sullivan, 283 S.C. 29, 32-33, 320 S.E.2d 499, 501 (Ct.App.1984) (citing Hicks v. Hicks, 280 S.C. 378, 312 S.E.2d 598 (Ct.App.1984)). B. Law/Analysis 1. Law of the Case The findi......
-
Miller v. Miller
...without evidentiary support." Floyd v. Floyd, 365 S.C. 56, 72, 615 S.E.2d 465, 473 (Ct.App.2005) (quoting Haselwood v. Sullivan, 283 S.C. 29, 32-33, 320 S.E.2d 499, 501 (Ct.App.1984)). LAW/ANALYSIS I. CONTEMPT "The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts. Its existence is ess......
-
Ex Parte Kent
...of the trial judge, which will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is without evidentiary support." Haselwood v. Sullivan, 283 S.C. 29, 32-33, 320 S.E.2d 499, 501 (Ct. App.1984). A decision regarding contempt should be reversed only if it lacks evidentiary support or the trial judge has ab......
-
Black v. Black
... ... without evidentiary support.” Haselwood v ... Sullivan, 283 S.C. 29, 32-33, 320 S.E.2d 499, 501 (Ct ... App. 1984) (citing ... ...