Hopkins v. Hopkins, 1143
| Decision Date | 14 March 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 1143,1143 |
| Citation | 295 S.C. 239,367 S.E.2d 714 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Sylvia Claire Godwin HOPKINS, Appellant-Respondent, v. Stephen Wayne HOPKINS, Respondent-Appellant. . Heard |
Randall M. Chastain, Columbia, for appellant-respondent.
Evander G. Jeffords and Mary Layton Wells, Florence, for respondent-appellant.
The appealed order, inter alia, granted the wife a divorce on the ground of one year's separation, barred both parties from alimony, identified and divided the marital assets and ordered the husband to pay $500 to the wife's attorney. Both the wife and husband appeal. We reverse and remand.
The issues of merit in this appeal are (1) whether the trial judge erred in identifying the marital assets by counting twice several assets belonging to businesses owned by the husband, (2) whether the trial judge properly awarded the wife only 30 percent of the marital assets and the husband 70 percent, (3) whether the trial judge properly included in the marital estate real properties owned by the husband and his mother and acquired after the parties separated, (4) whether the trial judge properly denied alimony to the wife and (5) whether the award of $500 in attorney fees to the wife was proper.
The parties were married nineteen years. They have a teenage minor son and an adult daughter. The husband is self-employed in real estate and construction. The wife is a teacher. At the time of the hearing, both parties were forty years of age, in good health and gainfully employed. Neither party was found to be at fault in the dissolution of the marriage.
An appendix to the Transcript of Record summarizes the business assets owned by the husband. Included in each listing is the net value of each of the assets and the state of the title. The total net value of these assets is about $31,000. The trial judge properly included this value in the marital estate. In addition, however, he also included separately in the marital estate the values of these assets already accounted for in the valuation of the husband's business interests. Based on our review of the record, we hold that those items counted twice in the marital estate are as follows:
Asset Value
Office Building, 115 Acline Street and $21,800.00
house and lot in Coward, SC
House and lot on Fairview Street 13,300.00
29 acres in Florence County 15,500.00
House and lot in Williamsburg County 4,000.00
Lot on Dansing Street 10,000.00
1984 Chevrolet truck 4,990.32
1984 Jeep truck 750.00
1973 International truck 400.00
Pewter collection 750.00
Office equipment 3,500.00
Contracts of Sale 9,500.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $84,490.32 1
The trial judge awarded the husband his three businesses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hickum v. Hickum
...is filed or commenced." Prosser v. Pee Dee State Bank, 295 S.C. 212, 214, 367 S.E.2d 698 (1988). Accord, Hopkins v. Hopkins, 295 S.C. 239, 367 S.E.2d 714 (Ct.App.1988). Thus, the "marital property" at issue here did not exist until September 20, 1993, at the time of the filing of this actio......