Honea v. Honea

• Decision Date: 21 April 1987
• Docket Number: No. 0964,0964
• Citation: 292 S.C. 456,357 S.E.2d 191
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Sally C. HONEA, Appellant, v. Fant J. HONEA, Respondent. . Heard

Page 191

357 S.E.2d 191

292 S.C. 456

Sally C. HONEA, Appellant, v. Fant J. HONEA, Respondent.

No. 0964.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard April 21, 1987.

Decided May 26, 1987.

Todd M. Ackley and Richard H. Warder, both of Warder & Steele, Greenville, for appellant.

Julian L. Stoudemire, of Ross, Stoudemire and Awde, Seneca, for respondent.

BELL, Judge:

In this action for a divorce, Sally C. Honea appeals from the judgment of the family court denying her alimony and awarding her a 40.4% share of the marital estate.

The parties were married in July 1950. Two children, now emancipated, were born of the marriage. The wife left the marital home in January 1985 and the parties lived apart thereafter. In February 1986, Mrs. Honea petitioned for a divorce on the ground of one year's continuous separation without cohabitation. Mr. Honea did not contest the divorce.

I.

The main issues before the family court were alimony and equitable division of the marital estate. The parties stipulated to the value of the marital property and agreed to a method of division of the personal property. The total marital estate was valued at $312,153.39.

At trial, Mr. Honea presented detailed evidence on the issue of equitable division, including thirty-four years of income tax returns, bank records, appraisals, and the like. He also called an expert witness, Dr. Perry Woodside, who testified as to the value of the parties' direct and indirect contributions to the marriage. Dr. Woodside's testimony was accompanied by several tables itemizing the parties' respective contributions year by year for the entire marriage. Mrs. Honea presented no evidence as to the value of her direct or indirect contributions to the marriage. Although she had Dr. Woodside's study several months before the hearing, she introduced no figures of her own to show Woodside's data were incorrect. When asked by this Court during oral argument to point to any other evidence of the value of the wife's contributions, counsel conceded there was none.

Based on Mr. Honea's evidence, the family court determined the marital estate should be divided 40.4% to Mrs. Honea and 59.6% to Mr. Honea. Accordingly, the court awarded Mrs. Honea $126,109.97 in assets, approximately $111,000.00 of which was in cash. Mr. Honea received primarily real and personal property as his share of the distribution.

Mrs. Honea contends the evidence is insufficient to support the court's apportionment of the marital estate. In her opinion, the court should have made a 50%/50% division. However, she has produced no evidence to show the value of her contributions to the marriage equalled Mr. Honea's.

The trial court's findings come to us with a presumption of correctness. McNair v. Moore, 70 S.C. 551, 50 S.E. 197 (1905). The burden is on Mrs. Honea to demonstrate the family court committed reversible error. Bungener v. Bungener, 291 S.C. 247, 353 S.E.2d 147 (Ct.App.1987). We have stated before, and we reiterate here, that a party cannot sit back at trial without offering proof, then come to this Court complaining of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the family court's findings. Cox v. Cox, 290 S.C. 246, 349 S.E.2d 92 (Ct.App.1986). If Mrs. Honea feels she is entitled to 50% of the marital estate, she has the burden as the petitioner seeking an equitable distribution to come forward with the evidence supporting her claim. After making no effort to prove the value of her contributions to the marriage, she cannot fault the family court for accepting the uncontradicted figures of Mr. Honea concerning the respective...