Miles v. Miles, No. 3654.

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: STILWELL, J.
• Citation: 355 S.C. 511,586 S.E.2d 136
• Parties: John E. MILES, Appellant, v. Rachel M. MILES, Respondent.
• Docket Number: No. 3654.
• Decision Date: 16 June 2003

355 S.C. 511
586 S.E.2d 136

John E. MILES, Appellant,
v.
Rachel M. MILES, Respondent

No. 3654.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard April 7, 2003.

Decided June 16, 2003.

Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled August 22, 2003.

355 S.C. 514

J. Leeds Barroll, IV, of Columbia, John O. McDougall, of Sumter, John S. Nichols, of Columbia, for Appellant

J. Mark Taylor, of West Columbia, for Respondent.

STILWELL, J.:

John E. Miles ("Husband") brought this action seeking termination or, alternatively, reduction in his alimony obligation to Rachel M. Miles ("Wife"). The family court refused to terminate, but did reduce Husband's alimony obligation from $4,583 per month to $2,500 per month. Husband appeals. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The parties married in 1962 and divorced in 1995. As part of the divorce decree, the family court adopted a written agreement between the parties in which Husband agreed to pay Wife $4,583 in monthly alimony. The agreement further provided:

355 S.C. 515

[T]he terms and conditions of this Agreement, and any Order approving the same, shall not be modifiable by the parties or any Court without the written consent of Husband and Wife. The parties specifically agree that the Family Court ... shall not have any jurisdiction to modify, supplement, terminate or amend this Agreement, or the rights and obligations of the parties. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to in any way prohibit the Family Court from the modification and/or termination of the alimony provisions of this Agreement as permitted pursuant to the law of the State of South Carolina.

On June 21, 2000, Husband brought this action against Wife seeking termination or reduction in his alimony due to a substantial change of circumstances. Husband alleged that Wife orally agreed to modify the parties' prior alimony agreement, and that Wife had entered into a relationship that was tantamount to marriage or was a common law marriage, such that alimony should be terminated.

Wife testified she had been involved in a relationship with Anthony Shepard since her divorce from Husband. Wife testified she and Shepard spend three to four nights a week together. Wife and Shepard often travel together and they maintain a joint traveling fund to which each contributes $150 per month. Wife described her relationship with Shepard as "close, personal, and emotional." Wife testified she did not consider herself married to Shepard, and denied she and Shepard had schemed to remain unmarried to avoid losing her alimony. Additionally, Wife testified she and Shepard maintain separate residences and checking accounts and do not have any joint investment or charge accounts. Wife did, however, make a one time loan to Shepard for $9,000, which Shepard repaid within a few days.

Wife testified Husband approached her in April of 1997 and discussed his intent to file an action to discontinue alimony based on her relationship with Shepard. Husband, who is an attorney, provided Wife copies of a published opinion from this court that involved termination of alimony based on the supported spouse's relationship with another party that was tantamount to marriage. According to Husband, Wife agreed at another meeting in January of 1998 that Husband could

355 S.C. 516

terminate alimony after a two-year period. Wife testified similarly regarding the oral agreement, but the parties never reduced any modification to writing

The family court ruled that circumstances did not warrant termination of alimony because Wife was not involved in a relationship with Shepard that was tantamount to marriage. The family court found the oral agreement regarding the termination of alimony was never reduced to writing and was not approved by the court, and therefore was not enforceable. The family court further found Husband's monthly income had dropped from $18,600 to $13,925 while his monthly expenses had increased. Citing this change, the family court reduced Husband's alimony obligation to $2,500 per month. The family court found neither party was entitled to an award of attorney fees. Husband appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In appeals from the family court, this court may find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Rutherford v. Rutherford, 307 S.C. 199, 204, 414 S.E.2d 157, 160 (1992); Owens v. Owens, 320 S.C. 543, 546, 466 S.E.2d 373, 375 (Ct.App.1996). However, this broad scope of review does not require us to disregard the family court's findings. Stevenson v. Stevenson, 276 S.C. 475, 477, 279 S.E.2d 616, 617 (1981). Nor do we ignore the fact that the trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony. Cherry v. Thomasson, 276 S.C. 524, 525, 280 S.E.2d 541, 541 (1981).

DISCUSSION

I. Wife's Relationship with Shepard

Husband argues the family court erred in failing to terminate alimony based on Wife's relationship with Shepard because the relationship is tantamount to marriage. We disagree.

Changed conditions may warrant a modification or termination of alimony. S.C.Code Ann. § 20-3-170 (1985). "The purpose of alimony is to provide the ex-spouse a...