Sharps v. Sharps, No. 25185.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: TOAL, Chief Justice
• Citation: 535 S.E.2d 913,342 S.C. 71
• Parties: Su Hnyn SHARPS, Petitioner, v. Loyde P. SHARPS, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 14 August 2000
• Docket Number: No. 25185.

342 S.C. 71
535 S.E.2d 913

Su Hnyn SHARPS, Petitioner,
v.
Loyde P. SHARPS, Respondent

No. 25185.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard April 6, 2000.

Decided August 14, 2000.

Rehearing Denied September 7, 2000.

342 S.C. 73

Peter D. Deluca, Jr., of Deluca & Maucher, L.L.P., of Goose Creek, for petitioner

Constance A. Anastopoulo, of Anastopoulo Law Firm, of Charleston, for respondent.

TOAL, Chief Justice:

The trial court awarded an increase in monthly alimony payments to a spouse. The Court of Appeals reversed. We reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's order.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1971, Su Hnyn Sharps ("Wife") married Loyde P. Sharps ("Husband") in Korea. Shortly after their marriage, the couple relocated to the United States and had two daughters. After thirteen years of marriage, the couple divorced in 1984. In the divorce decree, the court awarded Wife custody of their two minor children, child support of $400 a month, the marital home, and the right to pursue alimony after a period of thirty months.

After the thirty-month period, Wife filed a petition seeking alimony. The court awarded Wife $100 per month in alimony, increased to $150 a month after one year. By 1996, both children had reached the age of majority and Husband was no longer required to make child support payments. In 1997,

342 S.C. 74

Wife filed a petition seeking an increase in the amount of alimony payments claiming a substantial change in circumstances. Wife alleged the changes in both parties' incomes, an increase in the cost of living, and the termination of the child support payments warranted an adjustment in the amount of alimony paid by Husband

At trial, Wife asserted the changes she believed warranted an increase in alimony. Wife testified that she was 60 years old, her monthly wages had decreased by $489.63, her monthly expenses increased by $26.80 (due to an increase in her mortgage payment), the emancipation of her children had ended Husband's $400 a month child support obligation, she was unable to meet her financial obligations resulting in a monthly deficit, and she suffered from arthritis. She had obtained only the equivalent of an eight grade education in Korea and she could not write English.

Wife called Husband to testify at trial. Husband testified that he has worked for the United States Post Office since 1987. Since his divorce from Wife, Husband has remarried and then divorced a second wife. This second marriage did not produce any children, and Husband has no alimony responsibilities to the second wife. Husband testified that his income has increased by $1,497 per month since the initial award of alimony. The trial court also believed Husband attempted to deceive it concerning his financial obligations. At the time of the hearing, Husband was engaged for a third time to a woman with multiple sclerosis. At the hearing, Husband attempted to disguise his fiancee's car loan as a second loan on his truck. Also, the trial court found Husband attempted to include some of his fiancee's medical bills as part of his financial obligations.

Following Wife's presentation of her case, Husband moved for a directed verdict. Husband argued that Wife did not prove a substantial change in circumstances because the termination of child support was an anticipated event and general inflation along with Husband's increased income were not proper reasons for an increase in alimony. The trial court denied Husband's motion. The trial court found a substantial change in circumstances and increased Husband's monthly alimony obligation from $150 to $475. The court based its

342 S.C. 75

ruling on the increase in Husband's income, a decrease in Husband's expenses, the increase in Wife's expenses, the thirteen-year length of the marriage, and their respective ages

Husband appealed to the Court of Appeals arguing the family court erred in finding a substantial change in circumstances, erred in considering the termination of child support as a change in circumstance, erred in applying section 20-3-130(C)(12)(the existence of other support obligations), and erred by overlooking Wife's donations to her church as a sign of lack of need for alimony. The Court of Appeals agreed with Husband on several grounds. The Court of Appeals held the trial court improperly relied on the termination of child support to find a change in circumstances. The Court of Appeals also ruled general inflation and Husband's increase in salary were not sufficient to warrant a modification of alimony. The Court of Appeals also questioned the accuracy of Wife's financial declaration. See Sharps v. Sharps, Op. No. 99-U081 (S.C. Ct.App. filed February 9, 1999). Wife has appealed and the issues before the Court are:

I. Did the Court of Appeals err in finding the termination of child support is an anticipated event that cannot qualify as a change in circumstance?

II. Did the Court of Appeals err in overruling the trial court's determination that significant changes of circumstances existed warranting an increase in alimony?

LAW/ANALYSIS

I. Termination of Child Support as a Basis for Increasing Alimony

Wife argues the Court of Appeals erred in overruling the trial court's reliance on the termination of child support as a factor in...