Shecut v. Shecut, 19333
| Decision Date | 14 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 19333,19333 |
| Citation | 257 S.C. 354,185 S.E.2d 895 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ella Lockwood SHECUT, Respondent, v. James C. SHECUT, Appellant. |
Robert P. Wilkins, of McKay, McKay, Black, Sherrill, Walker & Wilkins, and Harvey L. Golden, Columbia, for appellant.
F. Hall Yarborough, Orangeburg, and James W. Alford, of Fulmer, Berry & Alford, Columbia, for respondent.
As the result of an action brought by respondent, Mrs. Ella Lockwood Shecut, against her husband, the appellant Dr. James C. Shecut, the Family Court of Orangeburg County awarded respondent custody of two minor children of the parties, the sum of $1105.00 per month as alimony and child support, and $2500.00 as counsel fees. Appellant does not question in this appeal the provisions of the order of the lower court granting custody of the children to respondent. Although appellant recognizes his obligation to support respondent and the children, he challenges here the award for alimony, child support, and counsel fees, basically, upon the grounds that he has, within his means, at all times provided adequately for his family and the amount awarded is excessive.
After a careful review of the record and the order of the lower court, we are convinced that the issues involved in this appeal have not received the required judicial consideration by the trial court, and the cause must be reversed and remanded. The record before us is inadequate and the findings are so indefinite as to afford no proper basis for appellate review. While the power to remand a cause, without decision, because of the inadequacy of the record and the findings of the lower court, is reluctantly exercised, we think remand in this case is necessary for a proper determination of the issues.
The basic issue in this appeal concerns the amount awarded for alimony and child support. This must be determined by the reasonable requirements of the respondent and the children and the ability of the appellant to pay. The record affords a most unsatisfactory basis for determining either.
The order of the lower court failed to allocate the amount awarded between the wife and children. Admittedly, remand is necessary for the purpose of making such allocation. Additionally, the order provides that respondent shall be 'allowed to continue to occupy the residence' in Orangeburg, South Carolina, but fails to define appellant's financial obligations in connection with such occupancy. Further, the order fails to determine whether the award for support includes the college expenses for one of the children or whether appellant is required to pay these expenses in addition to the monthly payment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sayler v. Parler, 19437
...required judicial consideration by the trial court and the judgment must, therefore, be reversed and the cause remanded. Cf. Shecut v. Shecut, S.C., 185 S.E.2d 895. Here, as in Shecut, the power to remand a cause without decision is reluctantly exercised but we deem a remand and a completel......