Roberson v. Roberson, 22892

• Decision Date: 09 June 1988
• Docket Number: No. 22892,22892
• Citation: 370 S.E.2d 612,296 S.C. 56
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Suzanne McCormick ROBERSON, Respondent, v. Herman L. ROBERSON, Appellant. . Heard

Page 612

370 S.E.2d 612

296 S.C. 56

Suzanne McCormick ROBERSON, Respondent, v. Herman L. ROBERSON, Appellant.

No. 22892.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard June 9, 1988.

Decided Aug. 1, 1988.

F. Glenn Smith, of Columbia and Steven A. James, Charleston, for appellant.

Mendel J. Davis, North Charleston, for respondent.

HARWELL, Justice:

This is an appeal from a divorce decree. The family court ordered appellant Herman L. Roberson (Husband) to pay respondent Suzanne McCormick Roberson (Wife) $25,000 "as her share of the value of" Husband's business and $2500 in attorney's fees. Husband appeals both the equitable apportionment and attorney's fees portions of the decree. We reverse and remand.

Husband owned and operated a tractor-trailer rig before the marriage. After the marriage, Husband traded his tractor-trailer in on a new rig which, at the time of the hearing, had an estimated value of $43,000. The outstanding loan balance on the rig was $43,509. The business in issue consisted basically of Husband, the truck, and the trailer.

Seven months into the marriage, Wife quit her job as a mechanical design drafter. She allegedly quit to help Husband with his trucking business at home and to accompany him on his hauls. Wife accompanied Husband on trips "every other weekend or every other week" for 10 months before returning to drafting work. Husband claimed Wife quit her drafting job because of problems with a co-worker and because "she just wanted to be with" Husband. He testified that Wife was merely along for the ride; the business derived no financial benefit from her presence. The couple had been married for 3 1/2 years when Wife left the marital home.

The family court judge granted Wife a divorce on the grounds of adultery. The decree also awarded Wife the parties' 1984 car, a $25,000 share of the trucking business, and $2500 in attorney's fees. Husband was awarded the parties' mobile home and was ordered to pay the outstanding balance on a credit card bill.

Husband's challenges to the apportionment of the trucking business may be grouped as follows: the decree failed to identify the business as marital property, failed to value it, failed to determine the value of Wife's contribution, and failed to apportion the business in a reasonable manner. We agree with Husband's arguments and hold the $25,000 award to Wife was arbitrary.

First, the trial judge failed to identify the business as "marital property" subject to apportionment under S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-473 (Supp.1987) of the Equitable Apportionment of Marital Property Act. The decree contains neither a conclusion that the business was "marital property" nor salient facts to support such a conclusion. The decree thus violates Family Court Rule 27(C), which requires salient factual findings to support the relief granted.

The decree is also defective in its failure to make any findings on the value of the business. See Reid v. Reid, 280 S.C. 367, 312 S.E.2d 724 (Ct.App.1984). The only evidence in the record pertaining to the value of the business was presented by Husband's certified public accountant, who reviewed the parties' tax records. The C.P.A. testified that the business had "absolutely no value". The business apportionment issue...