Moesley v. Moesley, 19868
| Citation | 263 S.C. 1,207 S.E.2d 403 |
| Decision Date | 05 August 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 19868,19868 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Jo Beth Hillhouse MOESLEY, Appellant, v. Lewis Gerrard MOESLEY, Respondent. |
James C. Cothran, Jr., Johnson, Smith & Hibbard, Spartanburg, for appellant.
James O. Thomason, Spartanburg, for respondent.
In this action in the Family Court of Spartanburg County the wife's complaint alleged that the husband had put her out of the marital home, had refused to allow her to return or to live with her as her husband and had refused to adequately support her. Inter alia, the complaint prayed for support for herself and child and for permanent division of the property of the spouses. The agreed statement reflects that after several hearings and lengthy negotiations the parties agreed upon a property settlement by which each spouse should receive one-half of the net proceeds of the sale of the family residence; a 1970 Pontiac automobile was allotted to the wife; a boat and motor were allotted to the husband, and the division of other personal property was specified. The terms of this agreement were incorporated into a decree of the court which recited that it was a complete and final settlement of all property rights between the parties. The decree was issued August 10, 1973, and was consented to by the attorneys for both husband and wife.
The parties were next in court on October 19, 1973, on a rule to show cause issued on the wife's petition alleging that the husband had refused to comply with the decree by transferring the Pontiac automobile and delivering the other personal property allotted to her.
No written return to the rule was made, but the husband testified that he had refused to comply with the decree on advice of counsel because the wife's father, the operator of a garage in Anderson where the boat had been stored for some two years, had asserted a large claim for storage fees and services, and had refused to surrender the boat to him. The husband testified that he had been offered $2600.00 for the boat and motor by one prospective purchaser and $2800.00 by another. Prior to the hearing, the wife's father had brought suit on his claim against the husband in an Anderson County Court, where the litigation is pending.
The wife testified that she was not involved in the controversy between her father and husband and had requested the former to surrender the boat to the latter.
Prior to the hearing, the residence had been sold for a net of $6,086.00. No part had been paid to the wife, but the husband's attorney stated that he was holding her share of the money in escrow.
Although the only issues before the court were those arising on the wife's petition to enforce the consent decree, the court handed down an order on November 1, 1973, which, after reciting that the husband had been refused possession of the boat and had in turn refused to deliver to the wife the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landry v. Landry
...spousal support may be modified where requesting party demonstrates a substantial change in circumstances); Moesley v. Moesley , 263 S.C. 1, 4, 207 S.E.2d 403, 404 (1974) (holding divorce decree may be modified with respect to custody and child support); S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-620(C) (2014) ......
-
Smith v. Smith, 21347
...expenses when they were not dealt with in the original decree. Witt v. Witt, 271 S.C. 541, 248 S.E.2d 494 (1978); Moesley v. Moesley, 263 S.C. 1, 207 S.E.2d 403 (1974); also see cases collected at 27B C.J.S. Divorce § 322(2) (1959). Here, the medical expenses were incurred for an injury to ......
-
Lawshe v. Lawshe, 21741
...to them and to the Family Court. Further, the original decree was not appealed and is now the law of the case. Moesley v. Moesley, 263 S.C. 1, 207 S.E.2d 403 (1974); Langston v. Langston, 250 S.C. 363, 157 S.E.2d 858 Finding no error of law or fact, the remaining issues in both appeals are ......
-
Brooks v. Brooks, 21634
...court exceeded its authority when it materially altered this portion of the agreement to appellant's detriment. Moesley v. Moesley, 263 S.C. 1, 207 S.E.2d 403 (1974). Finally, appellant argues the family court erred in refusing to require respondent to make child support payments through th......