Kelly v. Edwards, 21463
| Decision Date | 26 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 21463,21463 |
| Citation | 278 S.E.2d 773,276 S.C. 368 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Joan D. KELLY, Respondent-Appellant, v. Arthur J. EDWARDS, Appellant-Respondent. |
John I. Mauldin of Yarborough, Mauldin & Allison, Greenville, for appellant-respondent.
W. Howard Boyd, Jr. of Rainey, Britton, Gibbes & Clarkson, Greenville, for respondent-appellant.
This is an appeal from an order of the family court requiring appellant, Arthur J. Edwards, to pay child support and perform other affirmative acts under a 1969 separation agreement which was incorporated but not merged in a subsequent Mexican divorce. We vacate and remand.
Edwards first asserts the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because this is a contractual dispute. We agree.
The parties were married in New York. In 1969 they entered into a separation agreement which contained the following pertinent language:
The above quoted language evidences the intent of the parties to be bound by the separation agreement in determining the rights and liabilities thereunder. As the issue of child support was not before the family court, only the interpretation of the contract was in issue, therefore, the family court was without subject matter jurisdiction to determine contractual obligations. See: Zwerling v. Zwerling, 273 S.C. 292, 255 S.E.2d 850, 851 (1979); McGrew v. McGrew, 273 S.C. 556, 257 S.E.2d 743 (1979).
It is unnecessary to address appellant's remaining exceptions as we conclude the family court was without jurisdiction to hear this case. The order is vacated and the case is remanded to the family court for the purpose of entering an appropriate order transferring the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Rice
-
Peterson v. Peterson
...nature, the dispute concerned a contractual obligation and the family court was without subject matter jurisdiction); Kelly v. Edwards, 276 S.C. 368, 278 S.E.2d 773 (1981) (when language evidenced intent that parties be bound by agreement in determining rights and liabilities thereunder, th......
-
Stoddard v. Riddle
...279 S.C. 348, 352, 306 S.E.2d 624, 626 (1983); Bryant v. Varat, 278 S.C. 77, 77, 292 S.E.2d 298, 299 (1982); Kelly v. Edwards, 276 S.C. 368, 370, 278 S.E.2d 773, 774 (1981). In 1983, hoping to lessen the legal import of "words of art" such as "ratified," "approved," "incorporated," and "mer......
-
IN RE MESSER
...unclear as to what specific words were necessary to render a separation agreement enforceable in the family court. In Kelly v. Edwards, 276 S.C. 368, 278 S.E.2d 773 (1981), the supreme court held that an agreement incorporated but not merged in a divorce decree was enforceable only as a con......