McMurtrey v. McMurtrey
Decision Date | 21 November 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 20815,20815 |
Citation | 272 S.C. 118,249 S.E.2d 503 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Nell M. McMURTREY, Respondent-Appellant, v. William Raymond McMURTREY, Jr., Appellant-Respondent. Nell M. McMURTREY, Respondent, v. William Raymond McMURTREY, Jr., (two cases) Appellant. |
Sol E. Abrams, Greenville, for appellant-respondent and appellant.
William N. Epps, Jr., Anderson, for respondent-appellant and respondent.
First Appeal
This is an appeal from a Family Court order which denied the prayers of both parties for a divorce. The court did, however, find that the respondent-appellant (wife) was entitled to separate maintenance and awarded her the sum of $125.00 per month. No award was made for counsel fees to the wife and her request for possession of the marital residence or an alternative place to live was denied.
The appellant-respondent (husband) challenges portions of the order which denied him a divorce on the ground of desertion, found that he was not totally disabled, and granted a separate maintenance allowance for his wife. The wife appeals from the lower court's denial of a divorce on her asserted grounds of physical cruelty, desertion and/or constructive desertion, the court's refusal to award attorney's fees for the lower court action, and its failure to provide sufficient alimony and a suitable place to live.
We conclude that the lower court acted properly in refusing to grant a divorce to either party and acted well within its discretion in determining the disposition of the remaining issues. Since we find no error of law, and a full written opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm under Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of this Court. We find that the respondent-appellant is entitled to $500.00 attorney's fees for this appeal.
AFFIRMED.
Subsequent to the issuance of the order referenced in Appeal No. 1 (above), and while the appeal therefrom was pending, the respondent (wife) instituted this action against the husband seeking to hold him in contempt of court for failure to pay alimony in accordance with the order of the court.
The appellant (husband) answered the petition attempting to have the petition for contempt dismissed and the alimony awarded by the court terminated contending that he had sustained a change in physical condition since the order of the court which rendered him totally disabled and unemployable.
The matter was fully heard by the Family Court resulting in a decree which rejected the contention of the husband that he was totally disabled, held that substantial capital assets owned by him could, in any event, be used to make alimony payments, awarded the wife attorney's fees, and adjudged him in contempt of court. It is from this order that the husband appeals. We affirm. 1
The first contention of appellant is that the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Rowell v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 20814
-
Goldman v. Goldman
... ... he has interests in other property. See McMurtrey v ... McMurtrey, 272 S.C. 118, 121, 249 S.E.2d 503, 505 (1978) ... ("There is no ... ...
-
Goldman v. Goldman
...bring in money by renting out his rental home at market rates; and he has interests in other property. See McMurtrey v. McMurtrey, 272 S.C. 118, 121, 249 S.E.2d 503, 505 (1978) ("There is no limitation that alimony payments be made solely from current earnings."). Husband testified he would......
-
Hughes v. Hughes, 0077
...valued at $42,240. There is no limitation that child support payments be made solely from current earnings. See McMurtrey v. McMurtrey, 272 S.C. 118, 249 S.E.2d 503 (1978) (alimony payments). The father's assets are a sufficient financial resource from which to generate the funds required t......