Reaves v. Reaves, 19844
| Decision Date | 18 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 19844,19844 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Leila REAVES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Earl G. REAVES, Respondent-Appellant. |
Arrowsmith & Jackson, Florence, for petitioner-appellant.
Hyman, Morgan & Brown, Florence, for respondent-appellant.
In this proceeding in the Family Court of Florence County the appellant-wife sought a divorce from the husband on the ground of adultery; alimony, a property settlement and attorney's fees. The husband sought a divorce against the wife on the ground of desertion, which was granted by the court. The court denied the wife any alimony, but awarded her a property settlement in the amount of $2,500.00; an attorney's fee in the amount of $350.00 and possession of certain personal property belonging to the wife. Both parties appealed but the appeal of the husband has been abandoned.
The wife contends that the court erred in granting the husband a divorce on the ground of desertion; in denying her a divorce on the ground of adultery; in failing to award her alimony and in failing to grant her more than $2,500.00 in the property settlement.
The record discloses a rather involved and unusual course of events in which the parties have been involved over a number of years. No useful purpose could be served, we think, by relating all of the circumstances and events in detail. We have, however, carefully considered all of the evidence, but will relate only those facts which are essential to our decision and an understanding thereof. With the exception of the matters hereinafter noted and passed upon, we find no merit in any of the exceptions.
On July 16, 1972 the wife departed the home of the parties and has not since resided therein. There is sharp conflict in the evidence as to what brought about her departure, the husband contending that she left without any excuse whatever and the wife contending that in the course of an altercation he had twisted her arm inflicting a rather painful injury. Following this incident the wife went to a magistrate and obtained a warrant for the husband, but so far as the record reveals such has never been pressed. She also filed a petition in the Family Court for separate support and maintenance upon which petition a hearing was held on August 29, 1972. At that time the judge unsuccessfully attempted a reconciliation between the parties. The wife asked the court if she could return to the marital home and then testified that she loved her husband and that her only reason for not returning to the marital home prior to the time of the hearing was because the magistrate had told her not to return. The husband was not responsive to a reconciliation and informed the judge he would hever again live with her. On September 15, 1972 the court issued its order holding that the wife had failed to show just cause or excuse for deserting the marital home and accordingly did not have sufficient grounds to entitle her to an award for separate maintenance.
On or about October 5, 1972, fairly early in the morning, the wife, apparently without prior notice, returned to the marital home. The husband for the obvious purpose of keeping the wife from gaining entrance thereto had changed one or more locks. The wife, however, was able to gain entrance through the front door after cutting a hole in the screen wire. Much, if not most, of her clothing and personal effects were still in the marital residence. She did some cleaning about the house and was still there when the husband returned late that afternoon. There is virtually no conflict in the evidence as to what occurred upon his return. Upon the husband's arrival he greeted the wife with 'How in the hell did you get in?' He then wanted to know what she was doing there and she told him she had come home to stay. He informed her she wasn't staying, ordered her out of the house, called his lawyer and after some contact between the husband's lawyer and the wife's lawyer, her lawyer advised her to leave, which she did. As far as the record shows there was no further effort by either party toward a reconciliation.
Under the above related facts the court was in error in granting the husband a divorce on the ground of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilfillin v. Gilfillin
...issues were definitely raised in her pleadings and in her prayer for relief. 270 S.C. at 260,241 S.E.2d at 894. In Reaves v. Reaves, 262 S.C. 499, 206 S.E.2d 405 (1974), the trial court granted the husband a divorce on the ground of desertion and denied the wife's request for alimony. On ap......
-
Timms v. Timms
...were definitely raised in her pleadings and in her prayer for relief. 270 S.C. at 260, 241 S.E.2d at 894. See also Reaves v. Reaves, 262 S.C. 499, 206 S.E.2d 405 (1974) (where Supreme Court reversed and remanded for consideration of an issue not ruled upon by the trial judge); Hipps v. Hipp......
-
Fort v. Fort, 20615
...the issues were not among those specifically presented to the judge. A similar dilemma arose in the case of Reaves v. Reaves, 262 S.C. 499, 206 S.E.2d 405 (1974). In that case, the trial court granted to the husband a divorce on the ground of desertion and denied the wife alimony. Upon appe......