Skipper v. Skipper

• Decision Date: 06 June 1986
• Docket Number: No. 22630,22630
• Citation: 351 S.E.2d 153,290 S.C. 412
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Faye Roddey SKIPPER, Appellant, v. E. Lee SKIPPER, Jr., Respondent. . Heard

Page 153

351 S.E.2d 153

290 S.C. 412

Faye Roddey SKIPPER, Appellant, v. E. Lee SKIPPER, Jr., Respondent.

No. 22630.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard June 6, 1986.

Decided Nov. 17, 1986.

James T. McLaren of Draine, McLaren & Lee, Columbia, for appellant.

Brooks P. Goldsmith of Thomas, Goldsmith, Folks & Hodges, Lancaster, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant wife and respondent husband were divorced on June 14, 1984. On that date, the family court issued a decree of divorce and an order approving a settlement and support agreement. This order set forth and approved the property, support, and custody settlement reached by the husband and the wife. This settlement provided that the wife was entitled to use and possession of a "majority" of the husband's inherited/gift personal property provided that this property be bequeathed to the parties' son.

The parties attempted to divide the inherited/gift property but were unable to reach accord. The husband interpreted the agreement as requiring him to choose less than 50% of the total number of items. The wife contended that the husband was limited to less than 50% of the value of the inherited/gift property. The family court, in an action commenced by the husband, divided the inherited/gift property according to the number of items rather than the value. The lower court also determined that four items located in a safe deposit box outside the marital home were solely the property of the husband. The family court denied both party's request for attorney fees and costs.

The disputed personal property was either inherited by the husband or received by him as a gift. The family court has no jurisdiction to distribute nonmarital property, S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-473 (1986), although it can consider such property when apportioning the marital property, S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-472(7) (1986). This prohibition against distributing nonmarital property clearly is not applicable in the present case. The parties freely and voluntarily entered into the separation agreement and requested the family court to make the terms of the agreement part of the decree. As this Court stated in Moseley v. Mosier, 279 S.C. 348, 353, 306 S.E.2d 624, 627 (1983), "[J]urisdiction for all domestic matters, whether by decree or by agreement, will vest in the family court. In all decrees entered after this decision, the parties may contract concerning their property settlement and alimony, but the submitted agreement must be approved by the family court." We refuse to carve out an exception to the Mosier case that would slam the courthouse door on an individual who desired judicial enforcement of a court approved agreement which, by the parties own choosing, contains provisions dealing with nonmarital property.

The family court interpreted the agreement to require a division of the inherited items by number rather than value. Clearly the lower court erred in this matter. Absent an express indication in the agreement to the contrary, the items should have been divided according to value. See, e.g., Shaluly...