McCullough v. McCullough, 20781
| Decision Date | 16 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 20781,20781 |
| Citation | 271 S.C. 475,248 S.E.2d 308 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | William B. McCULLOUGH, Appellant, v. Audrey J. McCULLOUGH, Respondent. |
Kirby D. Shealy, Jr., of Wise, Wise & Shealy, Columbia, for appellant.
John A. Mason, Columbia, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the husband-appellant from an award of the lower court granting a divorce and awarding, as an incident thereto, certain stocks and an interest in a savings account to the wife-respondent. Although the award herein is characterized in the order of the lower court as "alimony and/or property settlement" we find the proper characterization to be alimony in considering the entirety of the record. The appellant questions the authority of the court to grant specific property as alimony, the alleged excessiveness of such alimony, and the alleged excessiveness of the attorney's fees awarded the wife's counsel. We affirm the amounts granted as alimony and attorney's fees, but further find that the lower court was without authority, under the prevailing state of the law, to award alimony in the form of specific property.
The alimony awarded the wife in this case consisted of a one-third interest in a savings account owned by the husband in the total amount of $3056.12, as well as various shares of stock owned by the husband having a total value of $12,733.95, the quantity and type of which are specifically itemized in the order. The decree sets forth that the above award would include all accrued amounts due by the husband to the wife under a previous temporary order of support issued in 1966. The decree further provides that the husband shall pay to the wife's counsel $1,000 as attorney's fees.
After reviewing the record and listening to oral arguments, we are of the view that the lower court committed no abuse of discretion or other error of law in fixing the above amounts of alimony and attorney's fees. We are also of the opinion that the special circumstances of this case warranted an award of lump sum rather than periodic alimony as sanctioned by § 20-3-130, S.C.Code of Laws (1976). Since these issues are controlled by settled legal principles, a full written discussion would be of no precedential value. We accordingly affirm the amounts found by the lower court under Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of this Court.
Appellant contends that the lower court was without jurisdiction to award his personal property to respondent as alimony. We agree with appellant that the family court's award of property in satisfaction of alimony obligations was improper under the controlling principles of Wilson v. Wilson, S.C., 241 S.E.2d 566 (1978) and Smith v. Smith, 264 S.C. 624, 216 S.E.2d 541 (1975). In Wilson, we held that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Jackson
...testimony" of eleven hundred pages; Bass v. Bass, 272 S.C. 177, 249 S.E.2d 905 (1978), affirming $1,200; McCullough v. McCullough, 271 S.C. 475, 248 S.E.2d 308 (1978), affirming $1,000; Morris v. Morris, 268 S.C. 104, 232 S.E.2d 326 (1977), reducing an award of $10,000 to Regarding the divo......
-
Harris v. Harris, 21927
...lump-sum alimony leads us to conclude that such awards are generally supported by special facts and circumstances. McCullough v. McCullough, 271 S.C. 475, 477, 248 S.E.2d 308; Jones v. Jones, 270 S.C. 280, 283, 241 S.E.2d 904; Nienow v. Nienow, 268 S.C. 161, 172, 232 S.E.2d 504; Murdock v. ......
-
Gilfillin v. Gilfillin
...family court, however, may specify a property transfer as an alternate method of satisfying an alimony payment. McCullough v. McCullough, 271 S.C. 475, 248 S.E.2d 308 (1978). The family court ordered the husband to fund the trust with $300,000 in cash or liquid securities from his portfolio......
-
Poniatowski v. Poniatowski, 21237
...It is well settled a court may not unconditionally order the transfer of property as alimony or in lieu thereof. McCullough v. McCullough, 271 S.C. 475, 248 S.E.2d 308 (1978); Wilson v. Wilson, 270 S.C. 216, 241 S.E.2d 566 (1978); Smith v. Smith, 264 S.C. 624, 216 S.E.2d 541 (1975). Here, h......