Means v. Means, 21661
| Decision Date | 04 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 21661,21661 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Mary Jane MEANS, Appellant, v. Charles Robert MEANS, Respondent. |
Daniel T. Brailsford, of Williams & Williams, Columbia, for appellant.
Robert M. McInnis, of Jenrette, Wheless & McInnis, North Myrtle Beach, for respondent.
On April 28, 1978, the Family Court issued a decree granting the Petitioner, Wife, a divorce and making various provisions regarding property and support, including an order that the Respondent, Husband, assign to the Wife all insurance policies "presently in force on his life making the said insurance policies the property of the petitioner [Wife], with her name as beneficiary and that Respondent [Husband] furnish continuing proof to the petitioner that the premiums on said policies are current; ...."
In June of 1978, the Husband surrendered to United Services Life Insurance Company a policy which had been in force on his life since prior to this litigation, and received therefor its cash surrender value of $7,664.00. This made an assignment impossible.
On August 17, 1979, the Family Court issued an order requiring Husband to show cause, if any he could, why he should not be held in contempt, for having disobeyed the previous order of the court by refusing to assign any of the said insurance policies. Pursuant to the order, testimony was taken by way of deposition and oral arguments were conducted before Judge Vaught. Judge Vaught issued what was styled a "Final Order", in which he held, inter alia, that the Husband was not in contempt, and that no financial reparation had to be made by virtue of the Husband having cashed in one of the policies.
From such order the Wife has appealed. The sole issue as taken from the Husband's brief is: "Should the Respondent have been held in contempt for his alleged violation of the provisions of the Divorce Decree?"
After finding that the Husband had cashed in one of the policies, the Judge ruled:
I find that the life insurance policies now in the hands of the Court have not been assigned by the Respondent and should be so assigned after appropriate assignment language is entered on each policy by the attorney for the Petitioner. I have further concluded that Respondent has substantially complied with the intention of this Court's Order with regard to the subject life insurance policies and as such is not in contempt of this Court's previous Order.
We are of the opinion that the judge erred. In the divorce decree in dealing with the insurance policy matter, the Judge said:
FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent assign to the petitioner all insurance policies presently in force on his life making the said insurance policies the property of the petitioner with her named as beneficiary and that respondent furnish continuing proof to the petitioner that the premiums on said policies are current; ...
(Emphasis added.)
It is clear to this Court that the Husband has willfully circumvented the direction of the trial judge not only by cashing in one of the policies but by failing to assign any of the policies until the hearing on the contempt matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Floyd v. Floyd
...trial judge has abused his discretion." Stone v. Reddix-Smalls, 295 S.C. 514, 516, 369 S.E.2d 840, 840 (1988) (citing Means v. Means, 277 S.C. 428, 288 S.E.2d 811 (1982); Fagan v. Timmons, 224 S.C. 286, 78 S.E.2d 628 (1953)); see also Widman v. Widman, 348 S.C. 97, 120, 557 S.E.2d 693, 705 ......
-
Simpson v. Simpson
...the Final Decree and effect compliance as best as possible. See Richardson, 309 S.C. at 36, 419 S.E.2d at 809 (citing Means v. Means, 277 S.C. 428, 288 S.E.2d 811 (1982)) (stating the duty of the trial judge in an action for civil contempt is to determine an appropriate method of making the......
-
Garris v. McDuffie
...the holding is based on a finding that is without evidentiary support or when there is an abuse of discretion. Means v. Means, 277 S.C. 428, 288 S.E.2d 811, 812-13 (1982). Here, the evidence does not support the finding that Garris had abandoned or waived his right to seek a contempt citati......
-
Campione v. Best
...of discretion, meaning we may only disturb them if they are based on incorrect law or inadequate evidence. Means v. Means , 277 S.C. 428, 431, 288 S.E.2d 811, 812–13 (1982).1 II.A. The Quarterly Payment Provision Best contends the Family Court erred in finding the Char-Broil payments were c......