McClerin v. McClerin
| Citation | 425 S.E.2d 476,310 S.C. 99 |
| Decision Date | 14 October 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 1912,1912 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Parties | Peggy Alexander McCLERIN, Respondent, v. Richard Leon McCLERIN, Appellant. . Heard |
James W. Tucker, Jr., Rock Hill, for appellant.
Keith A. Gatlin and Michael L. Brown, Jr., Gatlin, Brown and Godbold, Rock Hill, for respondent.
This is a domestic action instituted by respondent-wife, Peggy Alexander McClerin, against appellant-husband, Richard Leon McClerin. From an order of the Family Court, the husband appeals the equitable distribution of certain marital property and the award of attorney's fees and costs to the wife. We affirm in part and remand in part.
The parties were married on August 15, 1980 and separated in September of 1988. There were no children born of the marriage. Around 1977, the husband, a chemist, lost his job when the company he worked for was sold. Shortly thereafter, the husband formed R-M Industries, a custom manufacturer of specialty chemicals. The wife testified as to her extensive involvement in the inception of this business and her continual and extensive work for the company both before and after the marriage. The husband admitted to the wife's involvement but disputed her contributions to the growth of the business. The record shows the business became very profitable and the parties achieved a high standard of living.
The trial judge found the increase in the value of the R-M Industries stock owned by the parties was marital property and found the parties entitled to a 50/50 split of all marital property. He valued the increase in stock in question at $1,645,698. He further found the wife's wedding ring to be nonmarital property and found a marital asset of approximately $71,000 derived from an agreement with a French corporation. Finally, he valued a country club membership at $12,000, ordered the husband to pay $32,500 in attorney's fees and costs, and awarded each party alternating use of four Charlotte Hornets basketball season tickets. The husband appeals these aspects of the trial judge's orders.
The husband first asserts the trial judge erred in finding the increase in the value of the R-M Industries stock to be marital property. He argues the wife failed to present evidence demonstrating her contributions to an increase in the value of the stock. We disagree.
S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-473 (Supp.1991) provides in pertinent part:
The term "marital property" as used in this article means all real and personal property which has been acquired by the parties during the marriage and which is owned as of the date of filing or commencement of marital litigation ... except the following, which constitute nonmarital property:
. . . . .
(5) any increase in value in nonmarital property, except to the extent that the increase resulted directly or indirectly from efforts of the other spouse during marriage.
(emphasis added).
Although this court has jurisdiction in equity matters to find facts based on our own view of the preponderance of the evidence, we are not required to disregard the findings of the trial judge who is in a better position to judge the demeanor and veracity of the witnesses. Allen v. Allen, 287 S.C. 501, 339 S.E.2d 872 (Ct.App.1986).
The trial judge found that, through joint efforts, the parties built the company into a profitable business. In particular, he noted various direct and indirect contributions of the wife. He found the wife was with the husband at the inception of the company, she worked side by side with the husband building it to its present state, she held the position of Comptroller General and ran the administrative aspects of the business and, although in the latter years of the marriage she opened a separate company, she continued to work after hours and on weekends for R-M Industries and performed services for R-M Industries while working at the other company. Additionally, he found the wife and husband entertained clients of R-M Industries in a social and home setting devoting a substantial amount of their marriage, both social and working, to making the company into the profitable state it is in now. Finally, he noted that the wife performed a majority of the homemaker duties with the exception of what was performed by the maid. The record before us contains more than ample evidence to support these findings.
The husband next contends the trial judge erred in accepting the valuation placed on the company stock by the wife's expert. He asserts various inaccuracies with the expert's valuation and therefore argues acceptance of this valuation was inappropriate. We disagree.
The trial judge ruled as follows on this issue:
I find the value of the shares at the time of the commencement of marital litigation to be $1,840,698.00. This represents shares of 9,716 in the [husband's] name and shares of 815 in the [wife's] name. The [husband] brought assets worth $195,000.00 into the marriage, a majority of which were owned through R-M Industries. I find this to be non-marital property and set this figure off against the value of the stock. I therefore find the increase in value of the stock to be $1,645,698.00. In achieving this value, I specifically find that there is only one valuation before me. That valuation was presented by Randy Whitt, whom the parties stipulated to be an expert. Mr. Whitt is a certified public accountant. I find the value he reached to be credible. I also note that it was reached by standard accounting procedures. A Taiwanese Corporation recently paid $1,000,000.00 for one-third ownership of the company. Mr. Whitt valued R-M Industries in totality as of May 2, 1989 at $2,999,000.00. Based on the parties' ownership in the corporation, and deducting the $195,000 [husband] brought into the marriage, I find the increase in the value of the stock to be $1,645,698.00.
(emphasis added).
While the husband presented an expert in this area, his testimony consisted of his difference in opinion as to how the wife's expert applied various methods of valuing the business. The husband himself did not present any alternative valuation and his expert witness admitted that he did not make any valuation of the business and all he really did was critique the report of the wife's expert. After a thorough review of the record, we find no error on the part of the trial judge in accepting the valuation of the wife's expert. The husband cannot sit back at trial without offering proof and then complain of the insufficiency of the evidence on appeal. Honea v. Honea, 292 S.C. 456, 357 S.E.2d 191 (Ct.App.1987).
The husband also asserts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Solomon v. Solomon
...1047, 1049 (1997) (country club membership included in the martial property but not at issue upon appeal); McClerin v. McClerin, 310 S.C. 99, 425 S.E.2d 476, 479 (Ct.App.1993) (country club membership held to be worth the initiation fee at time of trial); McIntyre v. McIntyre, 722 S.W.2d 53......
-
Calhoun v. Calhoun
...v. Glasscock, 304 S.C. 158, 403 S.E.2d 313 (1991); Donahue v. Donahue, 299 S.C. 353, 384 S.E.2d 741 (1989); McClerin v. McClerin, 310 S.C. 99, 425 S.E.2d 476 (Ct.App. 1992). Neither the South Carolina Legislature nor the South Carolina Supreme Court has expressly authorized an attorney proc......
-
Myers v. Myers
...final order. 2. We note our courts have previously found engagement rings to be nonmarital property. See McClerin v. McClerin, 310 S.C. 99, 104, 425 S.E.2d 476, 478 (Ct.App.1992) (finding engagement ring given to wife before wedding ceremony was nonmarital property of the wife). However, Wi......
-
Dorchester County Dept. of Social Services v. Miller, 2576
...assign comparative weight to their testimony. Cherry v. Thomasson, 276 S.C. 524, 280 S.E.2d 541 (1981). See also McClerin v. McClerin, 310 S.C. 99, 425 S.E.2d 476 (Ct.App.1992) (Court of Appeals not required to disregard findings of trial judge who is in better position to judge demeanor an......
-
§ 6.04 Appreciation of Separate Property During Marriage
...the efforts of the non-owning spouse. See S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-473. See also, Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.401.[141] See McClerin v. McClerin, 310 S.C. 99, 425 S.E.2d 476 (S.C. App. 1992). See also: Florida: Sizemore v. Sizemore, 767 So.2d 545 (Fla. App. 2000). Georgia: Morrow v. Morrow, 272 Ga.......
-
§ 10.02 The Separate Property Business
...by the spouses "jointly." See: 12 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 1278; Comment, 32 Okla. L. Rev. 214 (1979). South Carolina: McClerin v. McClerin, 310 S.C. 99, 425 S.E.2d 476 (1992); Tucker v. Tucker, 282 S.C. 261, 317 S.E.2d 764 (1984). Cf., Reid v. Reid, 280 S.C. 367, 312 S.E.2d 724 (1984). Tennessee......
-
§ 5.02 Determining What Is "Property"
...Solomon v. Solomon, 857 A.2d 1109 (Md. 2004).[33] McIntyre v. McIntyre, 722 S.W.2d 533 (Tex. App. 1986).[34] McClerin v. McClerin, 425 S.E.2d 476 (S.C. App. 1992). [35] See, e.g., In re Marriage of Horstmann, 263 N.W.2d 885 (Iowa 1978). Cf., Meinholz v. Meinholz, 678 S.W.2d 348 (Ark. 1984).......