Lide v. Lide, 21588
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 277 S.C. 155,283 S.E.2d 832 |
| Decision Date | 26 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 21588,21588 |
| Parties | Vivian F. LIDE, Appellant, v. Vinton D. LIDE, Respondent. |
Jan L. Warner, Sumter, for appellant.
Paul A. Sansbury, Darlington, for respondent.
Appellant brought this action for divorce in Richland County. She sought custody of the parties' two minor children, child support, alimony and related relief. On respondent's motion, venue was changed from Richland County to Darlington County, where the parties were living at the time they separated. No appeal was taken from that order. Thereafter, respondent served an amended return denying the material allegations of the petition and seeking a divorce based on one year's separation.
In the decree dated May 11, 1979, the trial judge granted respondent's request for divorce on the ground of one year's separation. He awarded custody of the couple's two children: a twelve-year old girl, and a seventeen-year old boy to appellant. The order denied appellant alimony. It awarded a total of $600.00 per month in child support, and ordered respondent to continue medical insurance coverage for the children. It further ordered respondent to convey fee simple title to the marital residence to appellant, along with the household furnishings and a 1975 automobile. Additionally, respondent was ordered to deed appellant a lot in the Northwest Prestwood Sub-division; he was also ordered to pay one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) suit money. This appeal followed. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.
First, appellant appeals the denial of alimony.
An alimony award rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge. Alimony is a substitute for support which is normally incident to the marital relationship and all facts and circumstances disclosed by the record should be considered. No one factor should be considered dispositive.
Among the factors to be considered in determining whether alimony should be awarded are (1) the financial condition of the husband and the needs of the wife, (2) the age and the health of the parties, their respective earning capacity, their individual wealth, (3) the wife's contribution to the accumulation of their joint wealth, (4) the conduct of the parties, (5) the respective necessities of the parties, (6) the standard of living of the wife at the time of the divorce, (7) the duration of the marriage, (8) the ability of the husband to pay alimony, and (9) the actual income of the parties. Powers v. Powers, 273 S.C. 51, 254 S.E.2d 289, 291 (1979); Nienow v. Nienow, 268 S.C. 161, 232 S.E.2d 504 (1977).
The husband's financial statement of October 10, 1978, shows his age to be forty-one (41) and his wife's age to be forty (40) at that time. Both parties are in good health.
Respondent left appellant after eighteen years of marriage. During the husband's last year in law school and his first years of practicing law in Hartsville, appellant worked full-time as a teacher to support the family. Since then, she has worked intermittently as a part-time teacher to provide the family with additional funds.
Appellant presently works three days a week as an art teacher. However, her earning capacity as a teacher is considerably less than that of her husband, who was engaged in the private practice of law for more than a decade, served as a prosecutor for the South Carolina Attorney General, and as administrative assistant to a former Governor of South Carolina. At the time of this appeal, respondent was General Counsel for the S.C. Department...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Davis, 4188.
...weight to the applicable factors." Allen, 347 S.C. at 186, 554 S.E.2d at 425. Ultimately, no one factor is dispositive. Lide v. Lide, 277 S.C. 155, 157, 283 S.E.2d 832, 833 The record reflects that the family court considered the relevant statutory factors. However, Wife's earning history a......
-
Lewis v. Lewis, 26973.
...abused his discretion in failing to allocate the wife a more abundant portion of the property she helped to accumulate”); Lide v. Lide, 277 S.C. 155, 158, 283 S.E.2d 832, 834 (1981) (weighing the evidence and concluding, “the trial judge abused his discretion in denying alimony to the wife”......
-
Wooten v. Wooten, 3610.
...347 S.C. 281, 555 358 S.C. 76 S.E.2d 386 (2001); S.C.Code Ann. § 20-3-130(C) (Supp.2002). No one factor is dispositive. Lide v. Lide, 277 S.C. 155, 283 S.E.2d 832 (1981); Allen, 347 S.C. at 184, 554 S.E.2d at I am compelled to agree with Husband that, in this case, the Family Court arrived ......
-
Hunnicutt v. Hunnicutt, 2006-UP-024
...alimony. Epperly v. Epperly, 312 S.C. 411, 415, 440 S.E.2d 884, 886 (Ct. App. 1994). No one factor is dispositive. Lide v. Lide, 277 S.C. 155, 157, 283 S.E.2d 832, 833 (1981). A. Wife's Testimony Husband contends Wife's testimony established that she sought rehabilitative alimony of only $7......