Lowe v. Lowe, 19235
| Decision Date | 09 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 19235,19235 |
| Citation | 256 S.C. 243,182 S.E.2d 75 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Marlene H. LOWE, Appellant, v. James P. LOWE, Respondent. |
Kenneth C. Porter, Greenville, for appellant.
W. Paul Culbertson, Laurens, for respondent.
In this domestic relations case the plaintiff-wife sought a divorce a vinculo matrimonii on the grounds of physical cruelty and habitual drunkenness; in the alternative, she sought a legal separation. She also sought alimony, custody of the minor children born to the marriage, child support, and reasonable attorney's fees.
The defendant-husband filed an answer and cross action for divorce a vinculo matrimonii on the ground of adultery, and sought for himself custody of the children.
The lower court denied both parties' requests for divorce a vinculo matrimonii, but granted the wife's request for legal separation in the form of a divorce a mensa et thoro. The court granted custody of the children to the wife and directed the husband to pay $140 monthly as child support; her request for (1) alimony, (2) reasonable attorney's fees, and (3) more ample child support, were denied. It is from the denial of these three items that the wife appeals.
Neither party has appealed from that portion of the order which denied to each party a divorce a vinculo matrimonii; nor does the husband appeal any portion of the order. For the purpose of our review we therefore look upon the case as one for divorce a mensa et thoro, or legal separation, alimony, child custody, child support, and reasonable attorney's fees.
The parties to this action have been married fourteen years. The three children involved are ages eleven, ten and six. It appears that there is no hope of reconciliation of the marital difficulties.
The rule in South Carolina is well settled that the amount to be awarded for alimony and child support, as well as a determination of whether the wife is entitled to alimony at all, is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Such will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Welch v. Welch, 250 S.C. 264, 157 S.E.2d 249 (1967); Porter v. Porter, 246 S.C. 332, 143 S.E.2d 619 (1965).
We are faced, first, with the factual determination of whether the trial judge abused his discretion in allowing only $140 monthly for support of the three minor children. In determining the proper amount of such awards a court should consider not only the needs of the children but also the ability of the father to pay and all other surrounding circumstances. Graham v. Graham, 253 S.C. 486, 171 S.E.2d 704 (1970). A review of the entire record convinces us that the award is not in keeping with the ability of the father to pay and with the needs of the children. We hold that the lower court abused its discretion in awarding only the amount of $140 per month.
The evidence reveals that the wife and mother has emotional problems and has undergone eighteen shock treatments. She was, however, gainfully employed as of the time of the trial of the lower court. Her income, inclusive of the $140 support payments, is approximately $410 per month. She and the three children must live on this amount. Current expenses for her and the children were estimated to be about $468 per month, and the itemization presented to the court would appear conservative.
On the other hand, the husband and father earns from his regular job approximately $759 a month and lives with his parents. His gross income from all sources, for the year 1969, was $10,400. With the payment of $140 for the support of his children he is still left with at least some $619 month to meet his personal expenses.
The amount of an award for child support should be fair and just to all parties concerned. Murdock v. Murdock, 243 S.C. 218, 133 S.E.2d 323 (1963). Having concluded that the amount of $140 per month was inadequate such as to constitute an abuse of discretion, we remand to the lower court for the purpose of having the support for the three children increased. As this issue is re-evaluated, the court should keep in mind that we hold the amount to be grossly out of proportion.
On the question of attorney's fees we conclude that under Code Sections 20--112 and 20--113.1 the wife's claim was well-founded, especially in the light of the disparity between the financial situation of the husband and the wife. It is inferable that she could pay her attorney only at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Davis
...existing at the time of decree, husband's pre-existing disability entitled him to reservation of alimony); Lowe v. Lowe, 256 S.C. 243, 248, 182 S.E.2d 75, 78 (1971) (wife's past emotional problems, which during the course of the marriage, might recur to the point where she would be entitled......
-
Sargeant v. Sargeant
...P.2d 115 (1958); Schmidt v. Schmidt, 51 Wash.2d 753, 321 P.2d 895 (1958); Small v. Small, 207 Kan, 506, 485 P.2d 1365 (1971); Lowe v. Lowe, 182 S.E.2d 75 (S.C.1971); Swanson v. Swanson, 464 S.W.2d 225 (Mo.1971); Smith v. Smith, 172 Colo. 516, 474 P.2d 619 (1970). According great respect to ......
-
Nienow v. Nienow
...living. Accordingly, mindful of the financial disparity, between the parties, we hold that attorneys' fees are proper. Lowe v. Lowe, 256 S.C. 243, 182 S.E.2d 75 (1971). In determining the amount of such fees we have delineated several factors which may be properly considered including, "the......
-
Donahue v. Donahue
...prolongs the marital litigation. Few cases in South Carolina have addressed the question of reservation of alimony. In Lowe v. Lowe, 256 S.C. 243, 182 S.E.2d 75 (1971), this Court upheld a family court's denial of alimony to a spouse whose situation at the time of trial did not entitle her ......