Shaluly v. Shaluly, No. 22208

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtLITTLEJOHN
Citation284 S.C. 71,325 S.E.2d 66
PartiesMartha A. SHALULY, Appellant, v. Joseph Richard SHALULY, Respondent. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 22208
Decision Date12 December 1984

Page 66

325 S.E.2d 66
284 S.C. 71
Martha A. SHALULY, Appellant,
v.
Joseph Richard SHALULY, Respondent.
No. 22208.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Dec. 12, 1984.
Decided Jan. 8, 1985.

[284 S.C. 72] Julius B. Aiken and William J. Barnes, Greenville, for appellant.

Herman E. Cox, Greenville, for respondent.

[284 S.C. 73] LITTLEJOHN, Chief Justice.

By the appeal in this divorce action, the appellant-wife, Martha A. Shaluly, contests only the equitable distribution of property ordered by the trial court. She submits that the trial judge awarded a disproportionately large share of the marital property

Page 67

to the respondent-husband, Joseph Richard Shaluly. We agree.

The parties were married for twenty-seven years, and gave birth to five children, two of whom are unemancipated and are in the custody of the wife. The couple began their marriage with virtually no assets but were able to accumulate rather substantial properties during the twenty-seven year period. They operated a small but lucrative grocery business and purchased several parcels of real estate, bonds and made other property investments. For many years while performing the chores of a housewife and rearing children, the wife worked regularly in the store, and it is beyond question that her contribution to the accumulation of properties was substantial.

She was granted a divorce in February 1982 on the ground of adultery. Other issues, including equitable distribution, alimony, child support and attorney's fees, were reserved for a later hearing. The judge awarded $1,600 per month alimony plus $400 per month child support for each child during minority and additionally awarded attorney's fees.

As relates to equitable distribution, which is the only matter on appeal, the judge awarded the wife the marital home (valued between $100,000 and $225,000) and the furniture therein (valued between $5,000 and $85,000) plus $40,000 in bonds. In addition, she was allowed $20,000 taken from a savings account but it is inferable that such was used for support during an eleven-month period already ended.

On the other hand, the judge allotted to the husband the grocery store business (valued between $50,000 and $500,000), Airport Road property (valued at $40,000), rental property (valued between $125,000 and $150,000), $200,000 in tax-free bonds, a $47,000 Certificate of Deposit, a Paine Webber account ($25,000), business checking account ($5,000), Keogh Plan ($8,000) and a lake lot (valued at $30,000).

[284 S.C. 74] The authority to distribute...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 practice notes
  • Lewis v. Lewis, No. 26973.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 9, 2011
    ...reversed a family court's finding based on de novo review, we often said the family court “abused its discretion.” See Shaluly v. Shaluly, 284 S.C. 71, 74, 325 S.E.2d 66, 67 (1985) (where the family court failed to make findings, this Court made its own findings and observed, “we have studi......
  • Johnson v. Johnson, No. 1212
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • March 14, 1988
    ...marriage). 6 These statutory criteria replace the thirteen so-called "Shaluly factors" of pre-Act law. See Shaluly v. Shaluly, 284 S.C. 71, 325 S.E.2d 66 7 Prior to Shaluly v. Shaluly, supra, the law looked solely to the economic status of the parties at the time of divorce or sep......
  • Casey v. Casey, No. 0746
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 25, 1986
    ...257, 261, 312 S.E.2d 560, 563 (Ct.App.1984). We find that the trial judge clearly considered the factors listed in Shaluly v. Shaluly, 284 S.C. 71, 325 S.E.2d 66 (1985) in making the equitable distribution The trial judge made a Ten Thousand, Five Hundred Dollar ($10,500) award to Mrs. Case......
  • Watson v. Watson, No. 0842
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 15, 1986
    ...v. Taylor, 267 S.C. 530, 229 S.E.2d 852 (1976). His judgment will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Shaluly v. Shaluly, 284 S.C. 71, 325 S.E.2d 66 (1985). However, "[t]he amount of property awarded to the wife should bear a reasonable relationship to her contributions tow......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 cases
  • Lewis v. Lewis, No. 26973.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 9, 2011
    ...reversed a family court's finding based on de novo review, we often said the family court “abused its discretion.” See Shaluly v. Shaluly, 284 S.C. 71, 74, 325 S.E.2d 66, 67 (1985) (where the family court failed to make findings, this Court made its own findings and observed, “we have studi......
  • Johnson v. Johnson, No. 1212
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • March 14, 1988
    ...marriage). 6 These statutory criteria replace the thirteen so-called "Shaluly factors" of pre-Act law. See Shaluly v. Shaluly, 284 S.C. 71, 325 S.E.2d 66 7 Prior to Shaluly v. Shaluly, supra, the law looked solely to the economic status of the parties at the time of divorce or sep......
  • Casey v. Casey, No. 0746
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 25, 1986
    ...257, 261, 312 S.E.2d 560, 563 (Ct.App.1984). We find that the trial judge clearly considered the factors listed in Shaluly v. Shaluly, 284 S.C. 71, 325 S.E.2d 66 (1985) in making the equitable distribution The trial judge made a Ten Thousand, Five Hundred Dollar ($10,500) award to Mrs. Case......
  • Watson v. Watson, No. 0842
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 15, 1986
    ...v. Taylor, 267 S.C. 530, 229 S.E.2d 852 (1976). His judgment will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Shaluly v. Shaluly, 284 S.C. 71, 325 S.E.2d 66 (1985). However, "[t]he amount of property awarded to the wife should bear a reasonable relationship to her contributions tow......
  • 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