Oyler v. Oyler, No. 0977
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | CURETON |
| Citation | 293 S.C. 4,358 S.E.2d 170 |
| Parties | Richard Duane OYLER, Respondent, v. Emma Lou Adams OYLER, Appellant. . Heard |
| Docket Number | No. 0977 |
| Decision Date | 18 May 1987 |
Page 170
v.
Emma Lou Adams OYLER, Appellant.
Decided June 22, 1987.
Page 171
[293 S.C. 5] Nancy M. Young, of Day, Millender & Young, P.A., Columbia, for appellant.
Kenneth M. Mathews, and H. Bruce Williams, Columbia, for respondent.
CURETON, Judge.
In this appeal from a family court order, Emma Lou Adams Oyler argues the judge erred in allowing her former husband, Richard Oyler, to offer evidence of adultery to bar her counterclaim for alimony where the issue of adultery had not been raised in the pleadings. She also argues that the adultery statute, Section 20-3-130, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, is unconstitutional as violative of the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. We reverse and remand on the first argument alone.
The Oylers were married in 1961 and separated in 1977. On January 23, 1985, the husband petitioned for a divorce on the ground of one year's continuous separation. The wife answered and counterclaimed for an adequate amount of support for herself and the parties' children. The husband's reply entered a general denial that he should be required to pay support to the wife. Following a hearing, the judge made a determination of the values of property for equitable distribution, granted a divorce on the ground of a one year continuous separation, and reserved the issues of equitable distribution, support, and attorney fees for a future hearing.
The subsequent hearing was held on January 7, 1986. Toward the end of the wife's testimony, counsel for the husband was questioning the wife regarding her testimony that she desired a reconciliation with her husband. Counsel then asked the wife, "And you have acknowledged to him that you've had some adulterous relationships since you'all separated, haven't you?" Counsel for the wife objected on the basis that adultery had not been pled. The judge allowed the question since the husband denied the wife's entitlement [293 S.C. 6] to alimony, noting that he didn't think the husband had to plead it. The wife then answered that she had had a couple of sexual relationships since the separation.
The judge allowed the wife's counsel to file a memorandum in support of her objection to this cross-examination testimony and argue the point at a subsequent hearing. Counsel argued that the issue of adultery was not previously raised in the case, and was relevant only under Section 20-3-130, which bars alimony to an adulterous spouse. She argued that this Section is unconstitutional as violative of equal protection since spouses at fault for desertion, physical cruelty, and habitual drunkenness are not similarly barred. She also argued that the husband had not proven adultery.
The judge issued an order in February 1986 finding the husband's general denial in his reply that he should not be required to pay support to the wife properly placed adultery in issue under a liberal construction of Family Court Rule 12. He found that Section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrison v. Target Corp., Appellate Case No. 2017-000267
...which goes beyond the basic elements of the opposing party's cause and depends upon additional facts to defeat the claim. Oyler v. Oyler , 293 S.C. 4, 6–7, 358 S.E.2d 170, 172 (Ct. App. 1987) (internal citations omitted). In my view, the plain reading of Rule 8(c), SCRCP, results in the con......
-
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., No. 23937
...defense to adultery); Parker v. Parker, 519 So.2d 1232 (Miss.1988) (recrimination affirmative defense to adultery); Oyler v. Oyler, 293 S.C. 4, 358 S.E.2d 170 (Ct.App.1987) (recrimination and condonation affirmative defenses to adultery); Haring v. Haring, 125 Ill.App.2d 116, 260 N.E.2d 396......
-
Griffith v. Griffith, No. 2890.
...the lower court should not have allowed the husband to amend his pleadings to allege adultery two days before trial, citing Oyler v. Oyler, 293 S.C. 4, 358 S.E.2d 170 (Ct.App.1987). We find this argument to be without 332 S.C. 636 In Oyler this court held that a party may not raise adultery......
-
S.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hawkins, 2005-UP-116
...defense-failure to tender premiums-constitutes an affirmative defense or matter of avoidance” under Rule 8(c), SCRCP. See Oyler v. Oyler, 293 S.C. 4, 7, 358 S.E.2d 170, 172 (Ct. App. 1987) ([A]n avoidance is a defense which goes beyond the basic elements of the opposing party's cause and de......
-
Garrison v. Target Corp., Appellate Case No. 2017-000267
...which goes beyond the basic elements of the opposing party's cause and depends upon additional facts to defeat the claim. Oyler v. Oyler , 293 S.C. 4, 6–7, 358 S.E.2d 170, 172 (Ct. App. 1987) (internal citations omitted). In my view, the plain reading of Rule 8(c), SCRCP, results in the con......
-
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., No. 23937
...defense to adultery); Parker v. Parker, 519 So.2d 1232 (Miss.1988) (recrimination affirmative defense to adultery); Oyler v. Oyler, 293 S.C. 4, 358 S.E.2d 170 (Ct.App.1987) (recrimination and condonation affirmative defenses to adultery); Haring v. Haring, 125 Ill.App.2d 116, 260 N.E.2d 396......
-
Griffith v. Griffith, No. 2890.
...the lower court should not have allowed the husband to amend his pleadings to allege adultery two days before trial, citing Oyler v. Oyler, 293 S.C. 4, 358 S.E.2d 170 (Ct.App.1987). We find this argument to be without 332 S.C. 636 In Oyler this court held that a party may not raise adultery......
-
S.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hawkins, 2005-UP-116
...defense-failure to tender premiums-constitutes an affirmative defense or matter of avoidance” under Rule 8(c), SCRCP. See Oyler v. Oyler, 293 S.C. 4, 7, 358 S.E.2d 170, 172 (Ct. App. 1987) ([A]n avoidance is a defense which goes beyond the basic elements of the opposing party's cause and de......