Kendall v. Kendall, 1111
| Decision Date | 15 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 1111,1111 |
| Citation | 295 S.C. 136,367 S.E.2d 437 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | William C. KENDALL, Appellant, v. Gayle George KENDALL, Respondent. . Heard |
Frank M. Cisa, Burkett, Guerard, Bargmann, Wooddy, Cisa, O'Neill & Styles, Charleston, for appellant.
John B. Thomas, Thomas & Ginn, Charleston, for respondent.
In this divorce action, the husband appeals from that portion of the decree awarding the wife an interest in the marital home. The parties lived together before marriage during which time the husband bought a lot and built a home on it; at the time of the purchase the property was titled in the husband's name. After the parties were married, they lived together about eighteen months. About five months after they separated, the husband instituted this action. The appealed order implicitly held that the marital home had been transmuted into marital property and awarded the wife 20 percent of the proceeds from a sale of the home as equitable distribution of the marital estate. We affirm.
The sole issue on appeal is whether Section 20-7-473, Code of Laws of South Carolina (Supp.1987), negates the case law of this state pertaining to transmutation of non-marital property.
The Equitable Apportionment of Marital Property Act (the Act), Sections 20-7-471 through 20-7-479, Code of Laws of South Carolina (Supp.1987) was enacted in 1986 and is now part of the Code of Laws for this state. Section 20-7-473 defines marital property as that property acquired by the parties during the marriage; the statute also provides for certain exceptions not pertinent to this decision.
The husband contends that since he purchased the house before the marriage, it is non-marital property under the Act. In essence, he implies that since the Act does not expressly provide for transmutation of non-marital property into marital property, the pre-existing case law relating to transmutation was overruled by these statutes. We disagree.
While it is presumed that the legislature had full knowledge and information as to prior judicial decisions and existing law on the subject of equitable distribution, it is also presumed that the legislature did not intend to overthrow or depart from established principles of law beyond what it declares either expressly or by necessary implication. See 82 C.J.S. Statutes Section 316 (1953) and the many cases annotated thereunder, including Varn v. Beattie, 171 S.C. 424, 172...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strickland v. Strickland
...or abolish the doctrine of transmutation and we adopt the reasoning of our Court of Appeals as set forth in Kendall v. Kendall, 295 S.C. 136, 367 S.E.2d 437 (Ct.App.1988) regarding the continued vitality of the doctrine of transmutation. Therefore, inherited property may be transmuted into ......
-
§ 11.02 Transmutation by Agreement; Transmutation by Use
...287 S.C. 495, 339 S.E.2d 869 (1986). See also: Strickland v. Strickland, 297 S.C. 248, 376 S.E.2d 268 (1989); Kendall v. Kendall, 367 S.E.2d 437 (S.C. App. 1988). But see, Murray v. Murray, 312 S.C. 154, 439 S.E.2d 312 (S.C. App. 1993).[104] Alabama: Mayhann v. Mayhann, 820 So.2d 836 (Ala. ......