Rudick v. Rudick
| Decision Date | 21 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2016-002169,Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-306 |
| Parties | Alicia M. Rudick, Appellant, v. Brian R. Rudick, Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
Appeal From Darlington County
Cely Anne Brigman, Family Court Judge
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART
Karl Huggins Smith, of Smith Watts & Associates, LLC, of Hartsville, and Gregory Samuel Forman, of Gregory S. Forman, PC, of Charleston, for Appellant.
Kevin Mitchell Barth, of Barth, Ballenger & Lewis, LLP, of Florence, and Marian Dawn Nettles, of Nettles Turbeville & Reddeck, of Lake City, for Respondent.
Alicia M. Rudick (Wife) appeals a family court order claiming the family court improperly valued several marital assets and therefore, the equitable distribution award to Brian R. Rudick (Husband) is incorrect. In addition, Wife argues the family court erred in awarding Husband $3,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony and this court should reverse the award of attorney's fees to Husband. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Husband and Wife married in 1999 and have three minor children together. Throughout the marriage, Wife was employed by Sonoco Products and Husband was employed as a law enforcement officer. Wife's income drastically increased during the marriage, while Husband's income remained essentially the same.
The parties separated on April 6, 2015, and Wife filed for divorce on July 12, 2015. A temporary hearing was held on July 13, 2015, and the family court issued a Temporary Consent Order filed on October 19, 2015. The parties participated in a two-day trial on June 2, 2016, and June 20, 2016, which culminated in a Final Order granting the divorce based on one year's continuous separation. The family court awarded Husband $3,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony and divided the marital estate, awarding Wife sixty percent and Husband the remaining forty percent. As such, the family court ordered Wife to pay $206,703 of her Sonoco 401(K) plan to Husband by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In addition, the family court ordered Wife to contribute $5,000 toward Husband's attorney's fees and costs.
Wife filed a motion to reconsider on August 10, 2016. The family court denied Wife's motion in an order filed September 23, 2016. This appeal followed.
"[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo." Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593, 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018). "[D]e novo review allows an appellate court to make its own findings of fact[.]" Id. at 593, 595, 813 S.E.2d at 487.
On appeal, Wife argues the family court erred in determining the value of several marital assets, including her Sonoco stock options, Husband's and Wife's vehicles, the Disney Timeshare, and Husband's and Wife's defined benefit pension plans.
(citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted). "In the absence of contrary evidence, the court should accept the value the parties assign to a marital asset." King v. King, 384 S.C. 134, 143, 681 S.E.2d 609, 614 (Ct. App. 2009) (citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted).
The family court apportioned Wife her Sonoco stock options. Wife argues the family court made a clerical error in valuing the Sonoco stock options at $2,618.00, when they should have been valued at $2,168.35. Wife asserts the family court mistakenly transposed two numbers. Wife's quarterly statement as of December 31, 2015, reflects the value asserted by Wife. Husband concedes $2,168.35 is the correct valuation. Accordingly, $2,168.35 is the correct valuation for Wife's stock options.
Wife asserts the family court failed to take into account the debt owed on the parties' two vehicles when valuing them. Husband concedes the family court erred in not accounting for the debt associated with the vehicles, but differs with Wife as to the value and the amount of debt associated with each vehicle. We note the family court awarded each party their own vehicle.
The family court valued Wife's 2014 GMC Acadia at $23,439.00, which is the value Husband asserted in his proposed property division spreadsheet. Husband argues the debt associated with the Acadia was $22,414.00 resulting in net equity in the Acadia of $1,025.00. Wife asserts her vehicle should be valued at $26,325 according to the NADA guidelines as of May 2016 and the loan balance per Chase on May 27, 2015 was $26,217.64. Thus, Wife argues the net equity in the Acadia should be $107.36.
Similarly, the family court valued Husband's 2007 Silverado at $10,872.00, which Husband included in his proposed property division spreadsheet. While the family court did not account for the debt associated with the Silverado, Husband asserts the loan balance is $8,967.00, as reflected on his proposed property division spreadsheet. However, Wife argues the Silverado has a base retail value of $20,025 and a loan balance of $12,850.66 as of April 2015, according to information she submitted from the lienholder, giving Husband net equity in the truck of $8,420.66.
Both parties agree the valuation of the vehicles should reflect each vehicle's value net of its associated debt. See King, 384 S.C. at 144, 681 S.E.2d at 614 (). The parties, however, disagree as to each vehicle's fair market value and the loan balances. While the family court may accept the value asserted by either party, the values asserted by Husband are unsubstantiated. Husband cites only to his proposed property division spreadsheet for support of his values and loan balances. Whereas, Wife provided information from the NADA and the lienholders to substantiate the values and loan balances she asserts. We adopt the value asserted by Wife and find the net equity in the Acadia is $107.36 and net equity in the Silverado is $8,420.66.
Next, Wife argues the family court also failed to take into account the debt associated with the parties' Disney timeshare, which the family court awarded to Wife. The family court valued the timeshare at $17,500.00, but Wife submitted a loan transaction history from Disney Vacation Club reflecting a principal balance of $8,913.11 as of May 15, 2015, on the loan associated with the timeshare. Husband concedes this error in his brief. Thus, we find the parties' timeshare is worth $8,586.89.
Wife argues the family court erred in valuing both her and Husband's pension plans. Wife's Sonoco Pension Plan and Husband's State Retirement are defined benefit plans. Husband and Wife both agree these pension plans should be valued based on the present cash value, but disagree as to which calculation method to use.
(citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted).
At the hearing, both parties presented reports from their own CPAs valuing the other party's defined benefit plan. Both CPAs computed the present cash value of the other's plan using what the CPAs termed the "income tax method" and the "primary method." Under the primary method, the CPAs calculated the present cash value using the actuarial life tables in IRS publication 590 and those provided in section 19-1-150 of the South Carolina Code (2014).
The family court chose to adopt the present cash value calculation using the primary method and employing the actuarial life tables provided in section 19-1-150. Using this calculation, the present value of Husband's State Retirement is $441,193.83 and Wife's Sonoco Retirement is $908,799.56. Wife argues this calculation reflects a future value with an unspecified retirement age. However, after reviewing the calculations provided by the CPAs, the calculation under the primary method makes the same assumption with regard to retirement age as the income tax method. Both methods assume Husband will retire in ten years and Wife will retire in twenty-one years. In addition, Wife argues these calculations are based on a future date. Wife's CPA calculated the future value of Husband's State Retirement at retirement using the primary method to be $475,373.44 and then discounted that value based on the ten years until his retirement to find a present value of that amount of $441,193.83. Similarly, Husband's CPA calculated the future value of Wife's Sonoco Retirement to be $1,064,412.66 at retirement and then discounted that amount based on her twenty-one years until retirement resulting in a present value of $908,799.56. In light of these calculations, we do not agree with Wife's assertion that the calculations adopted by the family court fail to take into account the parties' retirement ages. Nor do we find the calculations represent a future value as opposed to the present value of a future income stream.
Wife argues the family cour...
To continue reading
Request your trial