Mason v. Mason, 20852
| Decision Date | 11 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 20852,20852 |
| Citation | 272 S.C. 268,251 S.E.2d 198 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Sybil Crocker MASON, Appellant, v. Keith Frederick MASON, Respondent. |
William D. Rhoad, Bamberg, for appellant.
Melvin K. Younts, of Younts, Spivey & Gross, Greenville, for respondent.
This appeal is from an order granting a divorce and collateral relief to the appellant, Sybil Mason. We affirm portions of the order determining the parties rights in the residence and personal property, but reverse the award of alimony.
Appellant contends that the trial judge erred in terminating appellant's alimony after 26 weeks and requiring her to be totally and permanently disabled in order to petition for future alimony. The alimony provisions of the divorce decree ordered:
That the Defendant, Keith Frederick Mason, be and he hereby is Ordered to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of Sixty-six ($66.00) Dollars for support each and every week for a period of Twenty-six (26) weeks, commencing the date of this Decree, to allow the said Plaintiff ample time to establish herself in gainful employment and said payments shall cease at the end of Twenty-six (26) weeks. Should the Plaintiff become totally and permanently disabled at any time in the future, she shall have the opportunity to petition the Court to seek support and/or alimony as shall be necessary to maintain herself.
While respondent argues that this award was warranted by Mrs. Mason's misconduct and financial stability, we cannot agree due to the absence of factual findings and evidence to support these contentions.
In Murray v. Murray, S.C., 244 S.E.2d 538 (1978), this Court approved alimony of $400 a month for 6 months where the unchallenged findings revealed that disintegration of the marriage was the fault of the wife. No such findings of fault or misconduct on the part of Mrs. Mason were made by the lower court in the present case. Instead, the trial judge found sufficient evidence of physical cruelty on the part of Mr. Mason to grant appellant a divorce on this ground.
The trial judge specifically found that the wife expected to find more suitable employment which would result in a salary sufficient to meet her needs. The trial judge also found that the wife was employed during most of the marriage. Although Mrs. Mason testified that she had procured employment just prior to the final hearing, there was no evidence as to what her income was to be from this employment. She also testified that she only worked occasionally as a part time beautician during the marriage and preferred to honor her husband's desires by staying at home. Even Mr. Mason's testimony revealed that she had not been successful as a cosmetologist because she was incapable of dealing with people. We have recognized that the ability of the wife to earn money in the future is a factor to be considered in establishing alimony. Murdock v. Murdock, 243 S.C. 218, 133 S.E.2d 323 (1963). However, under the circumstances of this case, we cannot conclude that the future or present self-sufficiency of the wife was adequately demonstrated by the evidence to justify the termination of her alimony on this basis, particularly in view of the fact that the terms of the order denied her the opportunity to have her status reviewed except under the drastic circumstances of total disability.
In light of the inadequacy of evidence to justify the temporary nature of this award, we conclude that the lower court erred in terminating Mrs. Mason's alimony after 26 weeks. Gill v. Gill, 269 S.C. 337, 237 S.E.2d 382 (1978).
Since this case is to be remanded for reconsideration of the question of alimony, we feel guidance should be given with respect to the propriety of the provision in the order restricting the wife's reapplication for alimony to periods when she would be permanently and totally disabled. In Blakely v. Blakely, 249 S.C. 623, 155 S.E.2d 857 (1967), this Court was asked to determine the right to modification under a decree which ordered the husband to pay $50 a month for 21 months and $150...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parrott v. Parrott, 21712
...we have divided equally. Spence v. Spence, 260 S.C. 526, 197 S.E.2d 683; Taylor v. Taylor, 267 S.C. 530, 229 S.E.2d 852; Mason v. Mason, 272 S.C. 268, 251 S.E.2d 198. Clear title in one or the other spouse has typically been confirmed upon divorce. McKenzie v. McKenzie, 254 S.C. 372, 175 S.......
-
Shafer v. Shafer, 0278
...future is a factor to be considered in establishing alimony. Murdock v. Murdock, 243 S.C. 218, 133 S.E.2d 323 (1963); Mason v. Mason, 272 S.C. 268, 251 S.E.2d 198 (1979). Yet, the part of the order concerning alimony did not address this factor. Upon remand, the trial judge shall determine ......
-
Herring v. Herring, 22366
...for alimony which are based upon the premise that the recipient Wife is, or will in time, become self supporting. Mason v. Mason, 272 S.C. 268, 251 S.E.2d 198 (1979); Murdock v. Murdock, 243 S.C. 218, 133 S.E.2d 323 In Mason we stated: We have recognized that the ability of the wife to earn......