Lide v. Lide, No. 21588

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; HARWELL; LEWIS; HARWELL
Citation277 S.C. 155,283 S.E.2d 832
PartiesVivian F. LIDE, Appellant, v. Vinton D. LIDE, Respondent.
Decision Date26 October 1981
Docket NumberNo. 21588

Page 832

283 S.E.2d 832
277 S.C. 155
Vivian F. LIDE, Appellant,
v.
Vinton D. LIDE, Respondent.
No. 21588.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Oct. 26, 1981.

Page 833

[277 S.C. 156] Jan L. Warner, Sumter, for appellant.

Paul A. Sansbury, Darlington, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

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 [277 S.C. 157] 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 practice notes
  • Davis v. Davis, No. 4188.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 21, 2006
    ...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 hist......
  • Lewis v. Lewis, No. 26973.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 9, 2011
    ...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, No. 3610.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 10, 2003
    ...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 ......
  • Wooten v. Wooten, No. 3610.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 10, 2003
    ...Patel v. Patel, 347 S.C. 281, 555 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 arri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
59 cases
  • Davis v. Davis, No. 4188.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 21, 2006
    ...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 hist......
  • Lewis v. Lewis, No. 26973.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 9, 2011
    ...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, No. 3610.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 10, 2003
    ...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 ......
  • Wooten v. Wooten, No. 3610.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 10, 2003
    ...Patel v. Patel, 347 S.C. 281, 555 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 arri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT