Haynes v. Haynes, 21931
| Decision Date | 26 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 21931,21931 |
| Citation | 279 S.C. 162,303 S.E.2d 429 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | William M. HAYNES, Appellant-Respondent, v. Marie G. HAYNES, Respondent-Appellant. |
Paul N. Uricchio, Jr., and Alan D. Toporek, both of Uricchio, Howe & Krell, Charleston, for appellant-respondent.
John J. Kerr, of Brockinton, Brockinton & Smith, Charleston, for respondent-appellant.
The Plaintiff (Husband) William M. Haynes brought this action against the Defendant (Wife) Marie G. Haynes, praying for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii on the ground of separation for one year. The Wife answered interposing a general denial and requested that if a divorce were granted, a division of the marital property be made and distributed to the parties. She also asked for alimony and attorney fees. From the order detailed hereafter, both parties have appealed. We reverse.
The parties to this action were married in 1951 and lived together until November of 1977. To the union were born six children who, as of this time would be between the ages of approximately nineteen and approximately thirty-two years. The Husband is a retired Lt. Commander from the U.S. Navy and draws $1,721.60 per month as retirement pay. In addition, he is employed and earns approximately $1,000 per month. The Wife is also employed as a nurse and earns approximately $976 per month. During the marriage of some twenty-seven years, she, in addition to rearing the six children, worked for approximately eleven years and contributed her earnings to family expenses.
The trial judge held that the Husband's military retirement pay was subject to equitable distribution but in the exercise of his discretion, he declined to equitably divide the retirement pay and instead awarded the Wife $300 per month alimony and $150 per month as child support.
The Husband appeals, alleging error "... in finding that military retirement income constitutes compensation for past services and in this instance property acquired during the marital estate subject to an equitable distribution."
The Wife has appealed, alleging error in: (1) failing to make equitable division of the retirement pay; (2) in awarding alimony and child support in lieu of equitable distribution; and (3) in abusing his discretion as to the amount of alimony and child support awarded in lieu of equitable distribution.
At the time of the judge's order (1980), McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981) had not been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. That case held that military retirement funds were not marital properties subject to equitable distribution. Thereafter, the Congress of the United States enacted the Uniform Services Former Spouses Protection Act, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., which, in effect, invalidated McCarty and permitted, but did not require, states to divide military retirement pay treating it as property in divorce proceedings.
This Court, being fully aware of both McCarty and the Act, in the case of Brown v. Brown, --- S.C. ---, 302 S.E.2d 860 filed May 4, 1983, held:
However, the final decision concerning the treatment of military retirement funds remains with the states. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Smith
...erred in concluding that the pension fund here constituted a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. Cf. Haynes v. Haynes, 279 S.C. 162, 303 S.E.2d 429 (1983); Brown v. Brown, 279 S.C. 116, 302 S.E.2d 860 (1983); Bugg v. Bugg, 277 S.C. 270, 286 S.E.2d 135 (1982); Carter v. Carter, ......
-
Watson v. Watson, 0842
...cases of Bugg v. Bugg, 277 S.C. 270, 286 S.E.2d 135 (1982), Brown v. Brown, 279 S.C. 116, 302 S.E.2d 860 (1983), and Haynes v. Haynes, 279 S.C. 162, 303 S.E.2d 429 (1983), our Supreme Court held that military retirement benefits are not subject to equitable distribution. Further, in Carter ......
-
Greene v. Greene, 860239-CA
...Hill v. Hill, 47 Md.App. 460, 424 A.2d 779, 783 (1981); Baker v. Baker, 120 N.H. 645, 421 A.2d 998, 1000-01 (1980); Haynes v. Haynes, 279 S.C. 162, 303 S.E.2d 429, 430 (1983). Conversely, some courts have found military retirement benefits to be divisible marital property. Stokes v. Stokes,......
-
Martin v. Martin
...Carter v. Carter, 277 S.C. 277, 286 S.E.2d 139 (1982) (dicta); Brown v. Brown, 279 S.C. 116, 302 S.E.2d 860 (1983); Haynes v. Haynes, 279 S.C. 162, 303 S.E.2d 429 (1983); Eichor v. Eichor, 290 S.C. 484, 351 S.E.2d 353 (Ct.App.1986). The Legislature has now defined "marital property" to incl......