Miller v. Miller, 22047

Citation313 S.E.2d 288,280 S.C. 314
Decision Date22 February 1984
Docket NumberNo. 22047,22047
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
PartiesRobert C. MILLER, Respondent, v. Jewel L. MILLER, Appellant.

William I. Bouton, Greenville, for appellant.

Robert C. Miller, for respondent.

GREGORY, Justice:

Respondent Robert C. Miller brought this action for divorce on the ground of adultery. Appellant Jewel L. Miller counterclaimed seeking separate maintenance, enforcement of a separation agreement executed by the parties prior to the filing for divorce, and attorney's fees. The trial judge granted respondent a divorce on the ground of adultery, found he lacked jurisdiction to consider the matters raised in the separation agreement, and found appellant's adultery barred alimony and attorney's fees. We reverse and remand.

Appellant first argues the trial judge erred in failing to assert jurisdiction over the issues of child support, child custody, and property which were contained in the separation agreement executed by the parties.

Litigants are encouraged to reach an extra-judicial agreement on issues arising out of the marital relationship; however, even a plain, unambiguous agreement is subject to the duty of the Family Court to rule upon its fairness. McKinney v. McKinney, 274 S.C. 95, 261 S.E.2d 526 (1980). Moreover, the Family Court has continuing jurisdiction to do whatever is in the child's best interest regardless of what the separation agreement specifies. Moseley v. Mosier, S.C., 306 S.E.2d 624 (1983). The trial judge erred in finding the court without jurisdiction over the issues contained in the separation agreement.

Appellant next argues the trial judge erred in failing to grant temporary child support during the pendency of the action. S.C.Code Ann. § 20-3-160 (1976) provides, "In any action for divorce from the bonds of matrimony the court may at any stage of the cause ... make such orders touching the care, custody and maintenance of the children of the marriage and what, if any, security shall be given for the same as from the circumstances of the parties and the nature of the case and the best spiritual as well as other interests of the children may be fit, equitable and just." We hold the trial judge erred in failing to consider appellant's request for child support during the pendency of the action.

Next, appellant argues the judge erred in failing to conduct a reconciliation hearing as required by S.C.Ann. § 20-3-90 (1976).

The reconciliation procedures of § 20-3-90 of the Code are mandatory. Fennell v. Littlejohn, 240 S.C. 189, 125 S.E.2d 408 (1962). Failure on the part of the trial judge to comply with § 20-3-90 of the Code is ground for reversal. Brown v. Brown, 243 S.C. 383, 134 S.E.2d 222 (1963). The record discloses no attempt by the judge to reconcile the parties; therefore, we reverse the decree granting respondent a divorce.

Appellant argues the trial judge erred in refusing to award her attorney's fees. The trial judge has the authority to order payment of alimony and suit money to either party in every divorce action. S.C.Code Ann. §§ 20-3-120, 20-3-130, 20-7-420(2) (1976 and Cum.Supp.1983). In fixing an award of attorney's fees, factors to consider include (1) the nature, extent, and difficulty of the services rendered, (2) the time necessarily devoted to the case, (3) the professional standing of counsel, (4) the contingency of compensation, and (5) the beneficial result accomplished. Collins v. Collins, 239 S.C. 170,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Landry v. Landry
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 13, 2020
    ...obligation to review the fairness of an agreement includes a duty to examine plain, unambiguous agreements. Miller v. Miller , 280 S.C. 314, 315, 313 S.E.2d 288, 289 (1984). Ambiguous agreements, however, require the family court to determine the intent of the parties before making a ruling......
  • Garris v. McDuffie, 0706
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 27, 1986
    ...Gay v. Gay, 288 S.C. 74, 339 S.E.2d 532, 534 (Ct.App.1986). The trial judge also has authority to award costs. See Miller v. Miller, 280 S.C. 314, 313 S.E.2d 288, 290 (1984). In making an award of attorney's fees the family court should consider and make appropriate findings concerning: (1)......
  • Petition of White
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 13, 1989
    ...of a child to do so regardless of the agreement's provisions. Moseley v. Mosier, 279 S.C. 348, 306 S.E.2d 624 (1983); Miller v. Miller, 280 S.C. 314, 313 S.E.2d 288 (1984); Small v. Small, 286 S.C. 87, 332 S.E.2d 769 (1985); Ratchford v. Ratchford, 295 S.C. 297, 368 S.E.2d 214 (Ct.App.1988)......
  • Anderson v. Tolbert, 2530
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 8, 1996
    ...Edwards v. Harris, 279 S.C. 189, 304 S.E.2d 638 (1983); Edens v. Edens, 273 S.C. 303, 255 S.E.2d 856 (1979). In Miller v. Miller, 280 S.C. 314, 313 S.E.2d 288 (1984), the Court held a wife's mere assertion that she had no funds with which to pay her attorney was insufficient justification f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT