Jackson v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 09 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2016-001208,Opinion No. 5785 |
| Citation | 432 S.C. 415,853 S.E.2d 344 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Annie R. JACKSON, Respondent, v. Sammy Lee JACKSON, Louise Jackson, and Walter Williams, Appellants. |
M. Rita Metts, of Metts Law Firm, of Columbia, for Appellants.
Annie R. Jackson, of Darlington, pro se.
Sammy Lee Jackson (Husband) appeals the family court's order granting Annie Jackson (Wife) a divorce and dividing the marital estate. Husband argues the family court erred in (1) failing to equitably divide the marital estate; (2) ordering him to pay half of their minor child's (Daughter's) graduation expenses and elective international school trip (the School Trip) costs; and (3) ordering him to pay alimony. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Husband and Wife married in Darlington, South Carolina, in 1984 and subsequently moved to New York. Husband and Wife both worked, and Wife took care of their home and children. The parties had three children, but two were emancipated at the time this action was filed; the other child—Daughter—was in high school and living with Wife.
In 1998, Wife moved back to Darlington due to Husband's infidelity. Husband remained in New York but periodically traveled to Darlington, and the parties continued a marital relationship until they separated in 2006.
In 2007, Husband was convicted of check and credit card fraud. Husband was sentenced to fourteen months’ imprisonment and was ordered to pay restitution. He was released from prison in 2008.
In March 2008, Wife obtained a family court order requiring Husband to pay $236.53 in weekly child support. Husband failed to make these payments. The family court reduced Husband's support obligation in 2011 due to the emancipation of the parties’ two oldest children. In the same ruling, the court ordered Husband to make payments towards his accrued child support arrearage.
In 2012, Husband suffered an injury and began receiving Social Security Disability (SSD). However, neither he nor Wife received SSD benefits for Daughter because he did not disclose on his application that he had children. In 2013, Wife contacted the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) regarding Husband's failure to pay child support. As a result, Husband began paying the child support, and Wife also started receiving SSD benefits for Daughter.
On March 20, 2014, Wife filed an action in family court, seeking a divorce on the grounds of adultery or one year's continuous separation; primary custody of Daughter; alimony; an upward modification of child support; a restraining order; and attorney's fees. Husband filed an answer and counterclaim, seeking a divorce on the ground of adultery; equitable division of the marital estate; an order denying Wife alimony, custody, and child support; and attorney's fees.1
At the time of trial, Husband was unable to work, receiving SSD and Workers’ Compensation (Workers’ Comp) benefits.2 Wife worked in school cafeterias earning minimum wage from 2004 until 2013. She stopped working because of a disability, and she had a pending SSD application. Wife received approximately $725 a month for Daughter's care—comprised of Husband's SSD benefits and child support—and $320 a month in food stamps.
Husband testified and offered documentation of outstanding back taxes, credit card debts, and court ordered restitution, all of which existed at the time the marital litigation began.3 Husband asserted Wife's name was on all of the credit cards and she specifically used a Macy's credit card. However, he did not offer the cards as evidence, and he did not offer any receipts or billing statements showing Wife used the cards. Wife denied use of the credit cards, claiming Husband put her name on the credit card applications. Wife also asserted the parties began filing taxes separately in 1998.
Wife lives in a home on Society Hill Road (the Society Hill Property) that she and her siblings inherited in 2001. Wife agreed to purchase her siblings’ interest for five dollars and future installment payments, and they conveyed the Society Hill Property to her in 2010. She testified she was still paying each sibling but was unable to regularly pay.
Husband lives in Brooklyn, New York. He admitted he purchased property on Crane Lane (the Crane Lane Property) but claimed he sold it back to the previous owner after learning it was subject to a substantial lien. He did not offer any other evidence of this transaction.
By order dated May 9, 2016, the family court found Husband's conduct contributed to the parties’ separation and granted Wife a divorce on the ground of adultery.4 The court imputed a monthly income to Husband of $4,000 based on his lifestyle, and the family court also imputed a monthly income to Wife of $1,256 per month based on minimum wage. The family court gave Husband a credit for a lump sum payment Wife previously received from Social Security for Daughter but found Husband still had a $34,869.93 arrearage in child support. The court ordered Husband to continue to pay $47.30 per week in child support for Daughter and to pay $9.46 per week toward his arrearage. The court also ordered his arrearage payment to increase to $100 per week once Daughter was emancipated. The family court found that Husband testified he was willing to pay for one-half of Daughter's graduation expenses and one-half of the School Trip and ordered him to pay accordingly. The family court awarded the Crane Lane Property to Wife, finding it was marital property and that Husband waived any interest in the property. The family court found Wife inherited the Society Hill Property and it was Wife's nonmarital property. The court also ordered an equal division of any future lump sum settlement from Social Security, Workers’ Comp, or buyout from Husband's former employer, as well as Husband's retirement account. The court held Husband's criminal restitution was not a marital debt and both parties were responsible for the remaining debts in their respective names. The family court awarded Wife $200 per month in permanent periodic alimony and ordered the obligation to increase to $300 per month once Daughter was emancipated. The family court also ordered Husband to pay $5,000 of Wife's attorney's fees. This appeal followed.
I. Did the family court err in ordering Husband to pay one-half of the expenses for Daughter's School Trip and graduation?
II. Did the family court err in dividing the marital estate?
III. Did the family court err in requiring Husband to pay alimony?
"The family court is a court of equity." Lewis v. Lewis , 392 S.C. 381, 386, 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011). On appeal from the family court, an appellate court reviews factual and legal issues de novo. Stoney v. Stoney , 422 S.C. 593, 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) (per curiam). Thus, an appellate court has the authority to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Lewis , 392 S.C. at 384, 709 S.E.2d at 651. However, this broad scope of review does not require an appellate court to disregard the fact that the family court, which saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony.
Id. at 385, 392, 709 S.E.2d at 651–52, 655. Moreover, the appellant bears the burden of convincing an appellate court that the family court committed error or that the preponderance of the evidence is against the family court's findings. Id. at 392, 709 S.E.2d at 655. The appellant also bears the burden of providing an appellate court with an adequate record for review. Ricigliano v. Ricigliano , 413 S.C. 319, 338, 775 S.E.2d 701, 711–12 (Ct. App. 2015).
As an initial matter, we find Husband abandoned several of his issues on appeal. Husband argues the family court erred in (1) imputing his income, (2) ordering him to pay attorney's fees, and (3) denying a motion for recusal. However, Husband did not cite any authority to support his assertions. Instead, he solely discussed the facts relating to his arguments and summarily concluded the family court erred. See Rule 208(b)(1)(E), SCACR (); Bryson v. Bryson , 378 S.C. 502, 510, 662 S.E.2d 611, 615 (Ct. App. 2008) (); see also Butler v. Butler , 385 S.C. 328, 343, 684 S.E.2d 191, 199 (Ct. App. 2009) (). Therefore, we find these issues are abandoned on appeal and affirm the family court on these issues.
Husband argues the family court erred in ordering him to pay part of Daughter's School Trip and graduation expenses because the Child Support Guidelines (the Guidelines) do not obligate him to pay for elective school trips and graduation expenses. We agree in part.
If a party concedes an issue before the family court, the issue is not preserved for appellate review. See Widman v. Widman , 348 S.C. 97, 118–19, 557 S.E.2d 693, 704–05 (Ct. App. 2001). When determining the appropriate child support amount, the family court considers the Guidelines. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 43-5-580(b) (2015), 63-17-470 (2010) ; S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 114-4710 (Supp. 2019). Regulation 114-4710 and subsection 63-17-470(C) list factors unaccounted for by the Guidelines that the family court is required to consider when determining whether to deviate from the Guidelines. Two of these factors are (1) "educational expenses[,] ... includ[ing] those incurred for private, parochial, or trade...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Reyes
-
Brantley v. Brantley
...for by the Guidelines that the family court is required to consider when determining whether to deviate from the Guidelines." Id. at 427, 853 S.E.2d at 350. S.C. Code Ann. 114-4710(B)(12) states: The court may deviate from the guidelines based on an agreement between the parties if both par......
-
Clear Agreements as the Best Prevention
...[26] Key v. Key, Op. No. 2020-UP-220 (S.C. Ct. App. filed July 22, 2020). [27] Id. at *2. [28] Id. at *1. [29] Jackson v. Jackson, 432 S.C. 415, 428, 853 S.E.2d 344, 351 (Ct. App. 2020). [30] S.C. Code Ann. § 63-3-530(17). [31] McKinney v. McKinney, 282 S.C. 96, 316 S.E.2d 728 (1984). [32] ......
-
Education Issues in Family Court Agreements
...look like given judicial blessing of dividing not merely physical placement or decisions, but primary authority for final decisions. [20] 432 S.C. 415, 853 S.E.2d 344 (S.C. App. 2020), citing LaFrance u. LaFrance, 370 S.C. 622, 657-58, 636 S.E.2d 3, 21-22 (Ct. App. 2006) (affirming the fami......