Powers v. Powers, 20931

Decision Date10 April 1979
Docket NumberNo. 20931,20931
Citation254 S.E.2d 289,273 S.C. 51
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesShirley D. POWERS, Respondent, v. John Keith POWERS, Appellant.

Moss, Carter, Branton & Bailey, Beaufort, for appellant.

Blatt & Fales, Barnwell, for respondent.

GREGORY, Justice:

Respondent Shirley D. Powers was granted a divorce from appellant John Keith Powers and was awarded alimony in the amount of three hundred ($300.00) dollars per month by order of the family court dated September 26, 1977. On appeal Mr. Powers contends the family court erred in refusing to recognize the validity of his prior Nevada divorce from Mrs. Powers and in awarding excessive alimony. We affirm.

Mr. and Mrs. Powers were married on June 26, 1955 and are citizens and residents of Beaufort County. On April 22, 1974, Mr. Powers deserted Mrs. Powers for another woman. On August 23, 1974, Mr. Powers traveled to Nevada for the express purpose of obtaining a divorce. He contacted an attorney in Nevada and on October 7, 1974 initiated an action for divorce. Mr. Powers returned to this State on October 8, 1974 but left again for Nevada on November 15, 1974. Mr. Powers obtained a default divorce in Nevada on November 18, 1974 and returned to South Carolina on November 19, 1974. Mr. Powers married his paramour on November 29, 1974.

Mrs. Powers initiated this action for divorce against Mr. Powers on June 20, 1975.

Mr. Powers asserted his prior Nevada divorce as a defense to Mrs. Powers' action, and appeals from the family court's finding that the Nevada divorce has no force or effect in this State. Mr. Powers does not contest the authority of the family court to determine whether the Nevada court had jurisdiction to enter a divorce decree, and he recognizes that his Nevada divorce would have no effect on his obligation to pay alimony to Mrs. Powers.

The effect in this State of a divorce obtained in another jurisdiction is controlled by Section 20-3-210 through Section 20-3-440, 1976 Code of Laws of South Carolina, the Uniform Divorce Recognition Act.

Section 20-3-420 provides that a divorce "obtained in another jurisdiction shall be of no force or effect in this State if both parties to the marriage were domiciled in this State at the time the proceeding for the divorce was commenced."

Section 20-3-430 provides: "Proof that a person obtaining a divorce from the bonds of matrimony in another jurisdiction was (a) domiciled in this State within twelve months prior to the commencement of the proceedings therefor and resumed residence in this State within eighteen months after the date of his departure therefrom or (b) at all times after his departure from this State and until his return maintained a place of residence within this State shall be Prima facie evidence that the person was domiciled in this State when the divorce proceeding was commenced."

The trial judge found that Mrs. Powers has been continuously domiciled in this State and that Mr. Powers was domiciled in this State within twelve months prior to the commencement of the Nevada divorce proceeding and resumed residence in this State within eighteen months after the date of his departure from this State.

The trial judge applied the presumption in Section 20-3-430 to these facts and found that the Nevada divorce decree was of no force or effect in this State since both Mr. and Mrs. Powers were Prima facie domiciled in this State at the time the Nevada divorce proceedings were commenced.

Mr. Powers attempted to overcome this Prima facie presumption by testifying that he left South Carolina intending never to return, that he procured a Nevada drivers license and nonresident hunting license, and that while in Nevada ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Rudick v. Rudick
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 31, 2022
    ...832, 833 (1981) (listing nine "factors to be considered in determining whether alimony should be awarded" (citing Powers v. Powers , 273 S.C. 51, 54, 254 S.E.2d 289, 291 (1979) ; Nienow v. Nienow , 268 S.C. 161, 170-71, 232 S.E.2d 504, 509 (1977) )); Spence v. Spence , 260 S.C. 526, 529, 19......
  • Rudick v. Rudick
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 31, 2022
    ... ... considered in determining whether alimony should be ... awarded" (citing Powers v. Powers , 273 S.C. 51, ... 54, 254 S.E.2d 289, 291 (1979); Nienow v. Nienow , ... ...
  • Collins v. Collins
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • September 24, 1984
    ...needs of the petitioner and the ability of the respondent to pay. Lide v. Lide, 277 S.C. 155, 283 S.E.2d 832 (1981); Powers v. Powers, 273 S.C. 51, 254 S.E.2d 289 (1979). We find no The acquisition of the marital home occurred in the following manner. Subsequent to the marriage, the parties......
  • Atkinson v. Atkinson, 0003
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • November 7, 1983
    ...by the appellant should be accorded full faith and credit. See S.C. Code of Laws §§ 20-3-410--20-3-440 (1976); Powers v. Powers, 273 S.C. 51, 254 S.E.2d 289 (1979). Cf. Ravenel v. Dekle, 265 S.C. 364, 218 S.E.2d 521 On remand, the lower court shall set forth in its order each salient fact f......
  • 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