Morris v. Morris, 20348

Decision Date24 January 1977
Docket NumberNo. 20348,20348
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesJo Anne M. MORRIS, Appellant, v. Wyman L. MORRIS, Respondent.

Jan L. Warner, Weinberg, Bryan, Warner, Brown & McDougall, Sumter, for appellant.

Joseph T. McElveen, Jr., Bryan, Bahnmuller, King, Goldman & McElveen, and Edward V. Atkinson, Sumter, for respondent.

LEWIS, Chief Justice.

This action arises out of the marital difficulties of Dr. and Mrs. Wyman L. Morris, of Sumter, South Carolina; and is before this Court on appeal from an order of the lower court awarding to Mrs. Morris a divorce a mensa et thoro, $600.00 per month alimony, $275.00 per month support for a minor child, and counsel fees of $10,000.00. Her claim of ownership of an interest in the property of Dr. Morris because of alleged contributions by her during the marriage to the accumulation of his estate was denied.

It appears that the parties were married in June 1952 and have two children, one of whom was eighteen (18) years of age and the other fourteen (14) when this litigation began in 1973. After protracted marital difficulties, Dr. and Mrs. Morris finally separated in October 1973, following which Dr. Morris brought an action in November 1973 in the Family Court of Sumter County in which he alleged, among other things, that the parties had separated, that he would pay support for Mrs. Morris and the two children, and sought the aid of the court in requiring Mrs. Morris to cooperate in the sale of the large family home so that he could acquire, in his name, and at his expense a smaller less expensive home for the exclusive use of her and the children.

Shortly after the foregoing action was instituted in the Family Court by Dr. Morris, Mrs. Morris brought an action against him in the Court of Common Pleas for Sumter County seeking a divorce, alimony, child support, and a share of his property.

After considerable legal maneuvering, the litigation between the parties was consolidated into this action brought by Mrs. Morris in the Court of Common Pleas; and, after reference to the Master and his report, proceeded to the judgment from which this appeal is taken.

Dr. Morris has appealed only from the award of counsel fees, contending that the amount was excessive. Mrs. Morris has appealed charging that the amount awarded for alimony, support of the child, and counsel fees was inadequate and that error was committed in refusing to award her a share of her husband's property.

Since Dr. Morris has not appealed from the award of alimony and child support, these findings by the lower court must be affirmed unless, as contended by Mrs. Morris, the awards were inadequate. The annual net income of Dr. Morris was approximately $20,000.00.

Dr. Morris has recognized an obligation to support his wife and child and originally sought the aid of the court in effecting the sale of his present home so as to provide a less expensive one for their use. The Master recommended that Dr. Morris be required to pay the sum of $600.00 per month as alimony and $275.00 per month as support for the child. In addition, the Master held that Mrs. Morris had 'contributed substantially in time and effort to the acquisition and worth of the family home and furnishings therein and to some degree' to other real property owned by Dr. Morris,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Johnson v. Johnson
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 14 March 1988
    ...marriage); Sauls v. Sauls, supra (separately titled marital residence purchased and paid for prior to marriage).5 See Morris v. Morris, 268 S.C. 104, 232 S.E.2d 326 (1977) (household contents acquired during marriage); Watson v. Watson, 291 S.C. 13, 351 S.E.2d 883 (Ct.App.1986) (contributio......
  • Parrott v. Parrott, 21712
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 26 May 1982
    ...in one or the other spouse has typically been confirmed upon divorce. McKenzie v. McKenzie, 254 S.C. 372, 175 S.E.2d 628; Morris v. Morris, 268 S.C. 104, 232 S.E.2d 326. The effect of the so-called "title theory" is twofold. It simultaneously precludes any interest or claim in one spouse to......
  • Jackson v. Jackson
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 28 December 1983
    ...S.E.2d 905 (1978), affirming $1,200; McCullough v. McCullough, 271 S.C. 475, 248 S.E.2d 308 (1978), affirming $1,000; Morris v. Morris, 268 S.C. 104, 232 S.E.2d 326 (1977), reducing an award of $10,000 to Regarding the divorce, the husband abandoned this issue on appeal. The trial judge was......
  • Simmons v. Simmons, 21248
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 5 June 1980
    ...this Court had not theretofore embraced it. See, e. g., McKenzie v. McKenzie, 254 S.C. 372, 175 S.E.2d 628 (1970); Morris v. Morris, 268 S.C. 104, 232 S.E.2d 326 (1977). Our family courts have, however, since applied the doctrine. See, e. g., Risinger v. Risinger, 273 S.C. 36, 253 S.E.2d 65......
  • 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