McAlister v. Patterson, No. 21831

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtGREGORY; LEWIS
Citation278 S.C. 481,299 S.E.2d 322
PartiesAlbert D. McALISTER, Respondent, v. Suzette N. PATTERSON, Appellant.
Decision Date21 December 1982
Docket NumberNo. 21831

Page 322

299 S.E.2d 322
278 S.C. 481
Albert D. McALISTER, Respondent,
v.
Suzette N. PATTERSON, Appellant.
No. 21831.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Dec. 21, 1982.

L. Paul Barnes, of Ward, Howell, Barnes, Long, Hudgens & Adams, and Bobby M. Pruitt, of Boyd, Rice & Pruitt, Spartanburg, for appellant.

Richard T. Townsend, of Townsend & Thompson, Laurens, J. Kendall Few, Greenville, and Randall T. Bell, of McNair, Glenn, Konduras, Corley, Singletary, Porter & Dibble, Columbia, for respondent.

GREGORY, Justice:

Suzette N. Patterson appeals from a family court order restraining her from removing her minor child from Laurens County, or in the event she moves, granting custody of the child to his father, respondent Albert D. McAlister. We affirm.

[278 S.C. 482] Appellant and respondent were divorced on August 7, 1980, after one year's separation. Pursuant to a Property Settlement Agreement between the parties dated August 6, 1979, custody of their minor son was vested in appellant.

Appellant married her present husband September 9, 1980. Approximately one year after her remarriage, appellant and

Page 323

her present husband decided to move to Washington, D.C. because he was dissatisfied with his job in Laurens. Upon learning of their imminent move, respondent petitioned the family court for an order restraining appellant from removing their son from Laurens.

At the hearing respondent testified he had provided appellant with a home valued at $100,000, an automobile, furniture and jewelry valued in excess of $31,000, a trust worth approximately $160,000, and one-half interest in a vacation home in the mountains in return for which appellant agreed to remain in Laurens with their son until he became emancipated. Appellant did not dispute respondent's testimony that he provided her with these assets, none of which was accumulated during their marriage. She acknowledged her intention at the time of their separation was to live in Laurens, but claims she made no promise to "chain myself to the Laurens County Court House" until their son became emancipated.

It is well established that in matters of child custody, the primary or paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. The trial judge found the agreement whereby the wife would remain in Laurens County had been entered into, but based his decision solely upon what was in the best interest of the child. The trial judge also found both parents were fit and proper persons to have custody...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • Lewis v. Lewis, No. 26973.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 9, 2011
    ...the finding of the trial court. See Wilson v. Wilson, 285 S.C. 481, 483, 330 S.E.2d 303, 304 (1985) (citing McAlister v. Patterson, 278 S.C. 481, 299 S.E.2d 322 (1982)) (“Although our scope of review allows us to find the facts in accordance with our view of the preponderance of the evidenc......
  • Blake v. Blake, No. 13257
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • April 26, 1988
    ...579, 580, [207 Conn. 221] 459 N.Y.S.2d 464 (1983); see also Sydnes v. Sydnes, 388 N.W.2d 3, 5-6 (Minn.App.1986); McAlister v. Patterson, 278 S.C. 481, 482, 299 S.E.2d 322 All of the cases cited by the defendant, however, involved a parent who sought a postjudgment modification of a joint cu......
  • Latimer v. Farmer, No. 25857.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 16, 2004
    ...(1998); In re Marriage of Burgess, 13 Cal.4th 25, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 444, 913 P.2d 473 (1996). Since our decision in McAlister v. Patterson, 278 S.C. 481, 299 S.E.2d 322 (1982), the courts in this state have been guided by a presumption against relocation in determining whether to allow a custo......
  • Collins v. Collins, No. 0328
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 24, 1984
    ...judge their demeanor and veracity, is given broad discretion. Peay v. Peay, 260 S.C. 108, 194 S.E.2d 392 (1973)." McAlister v. Patterson, 278 S.C. 481, 483, 299 S.E.2d 322, 323 (1982). In this case, we find no abuse of discretion in the court's awarding custody of the daughter to the The wi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
32 cases
  • Lewis v. Lewis, No. 26973.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 9, 2011
    ...the finding of the trial court. See Wilson v. Wilson, 285 S.C. 481, 483, 330 S.E.2d 303, 304 (1985) (citing McAlister v. Patterson, 278 S.C. 481, 299 S.E.2d 322 (1982)) (“Although our scope of review allows us to find the facts in accordance with our view of the preponderance of the evidenc......
  • Blake v. Blake, No. 13257
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • April 26, 1988
    ...579, 580, [207 Conn. 221] 459 N.Y.S.2d 464 (1983); see also Sydnes v. Sydnes, 388 N.W.2d 3, 5-6 (Minn.App.1986); McAlister v. Patterson, 278 S.C. 481, 482, 299 S.E.2d 322 All of the cases cited by the defendant, however, involved a parent who sought a postjudgment modification of a joint cu......
  • Latimer v. Farmer, No. 25857.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 16, 2004
    ...(1998); In re Marriage of Burgess, 13 Cal.4th 25, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 444, 913 P.2d 473 (1996). Since our decision in McAlister v. Patterson, 278 S.C. 481, 299 S.E.2d 322 (1982), the courts in this state have been guided by a presumption against relocation in determining whether to allow a custo......
  • Collins v. Collins, No. 0328
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 24, 1984
    ...judge their demeanor and veracity, is given broad discretion. Peay v. Peay, 260 S.C. 108, 194 S.E.2d 392 (1973)." McAlister v. Patterson, 278 S.C. 481, 483, 299 S.E.2d 322, 323 (1982). In this case, we find no abuse of discretion in the court's awarding custody of the daughter to the The wi......
  • 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