Poniatowski v. Poniatowski, 21237
| Decision Date | 20 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 21237,21237 |
| Citation | 275 S.C. 11,266 S.E.2d 787 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Doris PONIATOWSKI, Respondent, v. John P. PONIATOWSKI, Appellant. |
Van Osdell, Lester & Stewart, Myrtle Beach, for appellant.
H. Eugene McCaskill, Conway, for respondent.
This appeal is from a divorce decree ordering appellant John P. Poniatowski to transfer his interest in a bookstore to respondent Doris Poniatowski. We affirm.
The parties were married in 1963 and have no children. They moved to South Carolina in 1975 and purchased a bookstore in Myrtle Beach with joint funds.
Both parties worked in the bookstore until the onset of marital problems. The husband then requested the wife to discontinue active participation in the bookstore's retail operations and she complied. At the time of the divorce, the only jointly owned asset was a residence in Myrtle Beach. Appellant owned the bookstore and had interests in a gift shop and restaurant.
Appellant first asserts the family court erred in ordering him to transfer his interest in the bookstore to respondent "as division of property and in lieu of alimony." It is well settled a court may not unconditionally order the transfer of property as alimony or in lieu thereof. McCullough v. McCullough, 271 S.C. 475, 248 S.E.2d 308 (1978); Wilson v. Wilson, 270 S.C. 216, 241 S.E.2d 566 (1978); Smith v. Smith, 264 S.C. 624, 216 S.E.2d 541 (1975). Here, however, the court effected a division of the marital property while preserving respondent's future right to alimony.
Upon holding respondent entitled to both alimony and an equitable share of appellant's business interest, the family court recognized the proposed property division would make payment of alimony unnecessary and perhaps unduly difficult for appellant at the present time. It is clear from this finding the court did not intend the transfer of the bookstore to take the place of alimony. We construe the decree as awarding respondent appellant's interest in the bookstore only in lieu of present alimony.
Appellant also asserts the family court erred in ordering him to transfer his interest in the bookstore because respondent had not requested a division of his individually owned property. We disagree.
Section 14-21-1020, Code of Laws of S.C. (Cum.Supp.1979), empowers the family court to determine "all legal and equitable rights" of the parties in a divorce action "in and to the real and personal property of the marriage . . ., if requested . . . in the pleadings." While respondent's petition did not specifically request a division of appellant's individually owned property, the statement of the case r...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gay v. Gay
...the family court may not "unconditionally order the transfer of property as alimony or in lieu thereof." See Poniatowski v. Poniatowski, 275 S.C. 11, 12, 266 S.E.2d 787, 788 (1980) ("It is well settled a court may not unconditionally order the transfer of property as alimony or in lieu ther......
-
Gay v. Gay
...order the transfer of property as alimony or in lieu thereof." Poniatowski v. Poniatowski, 275 S.C. 11, 12, 266 S.E.2d 787, 788 (1980). In Poniatowski, our supreme court approved the family court's decision to award a wife all of her husband's interest in a bookstore "as division of propert......
-
Donahue v. Donahue
...One spouse's contributions to another spouse's business may create a special equity in his or her favor. Poniatowski v. Poniatowski, 275 S.C. 11, 266 S.E.2d 787 (1980). It is not error to consider the assets of a spouse's business in the division of marital property given evidence that the ......
-
Reid v. Reid
...the husband's essentially complete ownership of the company and denied the wife a greater interest in it ( cf. Poniatowski v. Poniatowski, 275 S.C. 11, 266 S.E.2d 787 (1980) ]; however, the trial judge took into account when dividing the marital property that the husband would be left with ......