Levy v. Levy, 21698
| Decision Date | 26 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 21698,21698 |
| Citation | 291 S.E.2d 201,277 S.C. 576 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Dean P. LEVY, Respondent, v. Aaron B. LEVY, Appellant. |
William H. Seals, of Law Offices of William H. Seals, Marion, for appellant.
Jan L. Warner, Sumter, for respondent.
The Plaintiff-Respondent, Dean P. Levy, Wife, brought this action seeking a divorce and other equitable relief against the Defendant-Appellant, Aaron B. Levy, Husband. The divorce was granted and that facet of the litigation is no longer of concern to the Court. The Family Court of Marion County decreed equitable division of the property of the parties and ordered the Husband to pay alimony and child support. The Husband has appealed, submitting that the trial judge abused his discretion in not requiring the Wife to share in the Husband's debts and erred in the award of alimony and child support.
This couple has been married for seventeen years. To the union was born two children. During these years, they accumulated substantial assets, a portion of which were titled in the name of the Wife. It is obvious that they lived "high on the hog" and, while enjoying ample earnings, incurred substantial debts. Some of these debts were the legal obligation of both the Husband and the Wife, but a great portion of them were the legal obligation of the Husband alone. It is the contention of the Husband that the trial court should not have equitably divided the assets of the parties without requiring the Wife to assume substantial portions of the personal debts.
The chore of equitably dividing property upon the dissolution of a marriage contract calls for the best thinking on the part of the trial judge. The chore is not always easy; more often it is difficult. Much discretion is permitted. We are of the opinion that the judge properly exercised his discretion as relates to the equitable division, payment of alimony and payment of child support. Certainly, there is no abuse of discretion requiring reversal by this Court.
The issues in this case would be properly disposed of under our Rule 23, since no error of law appears; however, there may be some precedential value in the question raised as to the sharing of debts as well as assets. We refuse to hold, as a matter of law, that the judge must order the sharing of debts as well as the sharing of assets. At the same time, we point out that it is always proper for the judge to take into consideration the debts of both of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kimmer v. Murata of America, Inc.
-
Hussey v. Hussey, 0052
...properly be considered as a factor in determining what constitutes an equitable division of the marital property. In Levy v. Levy, 277 S.C. 576, 291 S.E.2d 201 (1982), Mr. Justice Littlejohn states "it is always proper for the [family court] judge to take into consideration the debts of bot......
-
Monte v. Monte
...an abuse of judicial discretion to divide the assets of the parties equally without requiring them to share the debts. Levy v. Levy, 277 S.C. 576, 291 S.E.2d 201 (1986). In a situation such as present here, plaintiff had the burden of establishing the traceable debts. Sharp v. Sharp, 58 Md.......
-
O'Neill v. O'Neill
...in this division is permitted, and the judge is not required as a matter of law to order the sharing of debts. Levy v. Levy, 277 S.C. 576, 291 S.E.2d 201 (1982). Regarding attorney fees, the judge properly and separately ordered the husband to pay $4,500.00. The judge obviously intended for......