Perkins v. Parkins, No. 0015
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | GOOLSBY |
| Citation | 279 S.C. 508,309 S.E.2d 784 |
| Parties | Sarah P. PERKINS and John H. Parkins, IV, of whom Sarah P. Perkins is Appellant, v. John H. PARKINS, III, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 0015 |
| Decision Date | 05 December 1983 |
Page 784
Perkins is Appellant,
v.
John H. PARKINS, III, Respondent.
Page 785
[279 S.C. 509] Sarah Perkins, of Taylors, pro se.
Paul J. Foster, Jr., of Foster & Richardson, Greenville, for respondent.
GOOLSBY, Judge:
The appellant Sarah P. Perkins appeals the family court's interpretation of a divorce decree provision relating to the establishment of a trust, the court's failure to increase child support, and the court's failure to adjudge the respondent John H. Parkins, III, in contempt of court for not paying certain medical and dental bills. We affirm the family court's conclusions regarding the trust and child support questions, but we remand the contempt issue.
Although six of the appellant's eight exceptions violate Supreme Court Rule 4, Section 6, because they do not contain a complete assignment of error, we will nonetheless consider the questions argued in her brief. See Baker v. Weaver, 309 S.E.2d 770
Page 786
(S.C.Ct.App., 1983); Sandel v. Cousins, 266 S.C. 19, 221 S.E.2d 111 (1975).The appellant's first argument focuses on the family court's interpretation of a trust provision included in the decree divorcing her and the respondent on September 28, 1965. Pertinent portions of the divorce decree follow:
It appears ... that [respondent] has established and will keep in force and effect a trust agreement whereby the proceeds of certain insurance policies will be made available[279 S.C. 510] for the education and benefit of the two minor children born to this union....
* * *
* * *
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED...
* * *
* * *
That the following property settlement ... is ... adjudged a part of this decree:
* * *
* * *
c) [Respondent] shall establish and keep in full force an insurance trust in an amount not less than Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00) Dollars per child, with a national bank as Trustee, in order to protect [John H. Parkins, IV, and Rena Lee Parkins] from any undue medical and dental expense and to guarantee their education, with any residual amounts not so used by said children to accrue to them at a certain age, which insurance trust shall be irrevocable.
The appellant maintains that the trust designed to protect the parties' two children from undue medical and dental expenses and to guarantee their respective educations was to consist of ready funds in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) for each Parkins child.
The construction to be given the divorce decree's trust provision can be determined by its language. Chiles v. Chiles, 270 S.C. 379, 242 S.E.2d 426 (1978). If the language is perfectly plain and capable of legal construction, the words alone will determine the provision's force and effect. Superior Auto Insurance Company v. Maners, 261 S.C. 257, 199 S.E.2d 719 (1973).
To us, the language of the trust provision appears clear and unambiguous and determines the result here. The language plainly directed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Welding Works, Inc. v. K & S Const. Co., No. 0497
...Ramage, 283 S.C. 239, 322 S.E.2d 22 (Ct.App.1984); Bartles v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 448, 319 S.E.2d 707 (Ct.App.1984); Perkins v. Parkins, 279 S.C. 508, 309 S.E.2d 784 The principal issue before us is whether K & S was denied its statutory right to four peremptory challenges in striking ......
-
Nelson v. Merritt, No. 0062
...showing a sufficient change of conditions warrants a modification. Moseley v. Mosier, S.C., 306 S.E.2d 624 (1983); Perkins v. Parkins, 309 S.E.2d 784 (S.C.App., Here the trial judge first found that Merritt had made a proper showing of changed conditions sufficient to justify a reduction in......
-
Justice v. Scruggs, No. 0500
...modified by the court if evidence is produced showing a sufficient change of conditions warrants a modification." Perkins v. Parkins, 279 S.C. 508, 309 S.E.2d 784, 787 (Ct.App.1983). Since the award was first set in this case, Mr. Justice's physician advised him to stop work because of......
-
Bradley v. Family Ford Sales, Inc., No. 22444
...46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 72 (1969); cf. Superior Auto Insurance Co. v. Maners, 261 S.C. 257, 199 S.E.2d 719 (1973); Perkins v. Parkins, 279 S.C. 508, 309 S.E.2d 784 The broad language of the order, especially the underlined portion, clearly precludes the appellants' ability to maintain an a......
-
Southern Welding Works, Inc. v. K & S Const. Co., No. 0497
...Ramage, 283 S.C. 239, 322 S.E.2d 22 (Ct.App.1984); Bartles v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 448, 319 S.E.2d 707 (Ct.App.1984); Perkins v. Parkins, 279 S.C. 508, 309 S.E.2d 784 The principal issue before us is whether K & S was denied its statutory right to four peremptory challenges in striking ......
-
Nelson v. Merritt, No. 0062
...showing a sufficient change of conditions warrants a modification. Moseley v. Mosier, S.C., 306 S.E.2d 624 (1983); Perkins v. Parkins, 309 S.E.2d 784 (S.C.App., Here the trial judge first found that Merritt had made a proper showing of changed conditions sufficient to justify a reduction in......
-
Justice v. Scruggs, No. 0500
...modified by the court if evidence is produced showing a sufficient change of conditions warrants a modification." Perkins v. Parkins, 279 S.C. 508, 309 S.E.2d 784, 787 (Ct.App.1983). Since the award was first set in this case, Mr. Justice's physician advised him to stop work because of......
-
Bradley v. Family Ford Sales, Inc., No. 22444
...46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 72 (1969); cf. Superior Auto Insurance Co. v. Maners, 261 S.C. 257, 199 S.E.2d 719 (1973); Perkins v. Parkins, 279 S.C. 508, 309 S.E.2d 784 The broad language of the order, especially the underlined portion, clearly precludes the appellants' ability to maintain an a......