Murray v. Murray, 20701
| Decision Date | 24 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 20701,20701 |
| Citation | 244 S.E.2d 538,271 S.C. 62 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Emmette Sherman MURRAY, Respondent, v. Anne J. MURRAY, Appellant. |
Harry A. Chapman, Jr., Horton, Drawdy, Marchbanks, Chapman & Brown, Greenville, for appellant.
Forrest C. Wilkerson, of Roddey, Sumwalt & Carpenter, Rock Hill and John A. Martin, of Martin & Brown, Winnsboro, for respondent.
Anne Murray appeals from an order of the Family Court granting a legal separation and other relief to Emmette Sherman Murray. We affirm, with one modification.
Initially, appellant asserts Mr. Murray condoned her alleged misconduct by remaining in the marital home. We disagree. Mr. Murray remained in his home on advice of counsel and for the sake of the parties' young son. It is uncontroverted that he and his wife occupied separate rooms. Even if Mr. Murray's initial decision to stay in the home constituted condonation, the condonation was nullified by Mrs. Murray's subsequent acts of misconduct. See McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 244 S.C. 265, 275, 136 S.E.2d 537 (1964). Accordingly, this exception is without merit.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in awarding her only $400.00 per month for six months and three rooms of furniture. This award is consistent with the unchallenged finding of the Family Court that the disintegration of the marriage was the fault of Mrs. Murray. Apart from being the party at fault, Mrs. Murray does not have custody of the child and is able to work. Under these circumstances, the alimony award does not constitute an abuse of discretion.
Appellant asserts the child's best interest and welfare requires that his custody be granted to her. We disagree. While the testimony indicates Mrs. Murray was a devoted mother, there is ample evidence of the husband's fitness as a parent. Mrs. Murray has been under a psychiatrist's care and has attempted suicide. Therefore, the trial judge's finding that Mrs. Murray is the less stable parent is supported by the record. We conclude custody of the parties' young son was properly awarded to Mr. Murray.
Finally, appellant excepts to the trial court's additional award of $500.00 attorney fees to appellant. Appellant's attorney had been paid $500.00 by each party at the time of trial and the additional award brought the total to $1,500.00.
We agree this award is unreasonably low. The order of the Family Court is modified to require respondent to pay an additional $1,500.00 in lieu of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bodkin v. Bodkin
...six months when her habitual drunkenness caused the breakup of the marriage and she was able to work); see also Murray v. Murray, 271 S.C. 62, 64, 244 S.E.2d 538, 539 (1978) (affirming the family court's award of alimony of $400 per month for six months when wife's conduct caused the disint......
-
Theisen v. Theisen
...the court for separate maintenance, the parties must live in separate domiciles. The dissent relies, in part, on Murray v. Murray, 271 S.C. 62, 244 S.E.2d 538 (1978) and Gainey v. Gainey, 382 S.C. 414, 675 S.E.2d 792 (Ct.App.2009) in support of its position that living separate and apart is......
-
Srivastava v. Srivastava
...may be revoked by subsequent illicit conduct); McLaughlin, 244 S.C. at 275, 136 S.E.2d at 542 (same); see also Murray v. Murray, 271 S.C. 62, 64, 244 S.E.2d 538, 539 (1978) (finding that even if the husband's initial decision to stay in the home constituted condonation, the condonation was ......
-
Ariail v. Ariail
...or statutory authority. See Machado v. Machado, 220 S.C. 90, 66 S.E.2d 629 (1951); Nocher v. Nocher, supra; but cf. Murray v. Murray, 271 S.C. 62, 244 S.E.2d 538 (1978) (wherein the Supreme Court, in holding the husband had not condoned his wife's alleged misconduct by remaining in the mari......