Smith v. Smith, No. 21347
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Writing for the Court | NESS; LEWIS |
Citation | 272 S.E.2d 797,275 S.C. 494 |
Decision Date | 08 December 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 21347 |
Parties | Robert SMITH, Appellant, v. Inez SMITH, Respondent. |
Page 797
v.
Inez SMITH, Respondent.
Page 798
[275 S.C. 495] Andrew M. Jones, Jr., of Mitchell & Jones, Greenville, for appellant.
James J. Raman, Spartanburg, for respondent.
[275 S.C. 496] NESS, Justice:
This involves modifying a support decree. Appellant Robert Smith was ordered to pay his child's medical bills of $951.00 and an increase in child support to $35.00 per week due to a change in circumstances. We affirm.
Appellant first asserts the family court erred in refusing to dismiss the action because respondent Inez Smith commenced the proceeding by motions rather than by summons and petition.
There is no indication in the transcript of record that the lower court ruled on this question. An issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. McDaniel, S.C., 268 S.E.2d 585 (1980).
Moreover, appellant presented testimony which would constitute a general appearance and waiver of any jurisdictional defect. See Nocher v. Nocher, 268 S.C. 503, 234 S.E.2d 884 (1977).
Appellant next asserts the trial court erred by requiring him to pay the medical bills. We disagree.
The issue is whether extraordinary medical expenses of a child constitutes a change of circumstances warranting modification of a prior support decree.
We conclude a change of circumstances warranting modification of a prior divorce decree may be shown by extraordinary medical expenses when they were not dealt with in the original decree. Witt v. Witt, 271 S.C. 541, 248 S.E.2d 494 (1978); Moesley v. Moesley, 263 S.C. 1, 207 S.E.2d 403 (1974); also see cases collected at 27B C.J.S. Divorce § 322(2) (1959).
Here, the medical expenses were incurred for an injury to appellant's child's knee. The trial judge found this to be a change in circumstances which warranted modification of [275 S.C. 497] the existing support decree, and ordered the appellant to pay the $951.00 medical bill. Witt v. Witt, supra.
Child support is always modifiable upon proper showing of a change in either the child's needs or the supporting parents financial ability. Cason v. Cason, 271 S.C. 393, 247 S.E.2d 673 (1978); Campbell v. McPherson, 268 S.C. 444, 234 S.E.2d 774 (1977). The amount awarded is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Smith v. Smith, 264 S.C. 624, 216 S.E.2d 541 (1975).
Appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Riggs v. Riggs, No. 25598.
...Husband's remaining issues are without merit and we dispose of them pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR. See Issue IV: Smith v. Smith, 275 S.C. 494, 272 S.E.2d 797 (1980); Hatfield v. Hatfield, 327 S.C. 360, 489 S.E.2d 212 (Ct.App.1997) (issue must be raised to and ruled on by family court to be......
-
Bakala v. Bakala, No. 25586.
...compliance with the Hague Service Convention was never raised to the family court. Accordingly, we decline to address it. Smith v. Smith, 275 S.C. 494, 272 S.E.2d 797 (1980) (issue not raised to family court not preserved for review on Similarly, Husband raises for the first time on appeal ......
-
Calvert v. Calvert, No. 0578
...modifiable upon a proper showing of a change in either the child's needs or the supporting parent's financial ability. Smith v. Smith, 275 S.C. 494, 272 S.E.2d 797 (1980), S.C. Code of Laws § 20-3-160 (1976); see 24 Am.Jur.2d Divorce and Separation § 844 at 958 (1966). But whether the famil......
-
Petition of White, No. 1393
...support upon a proper showing of a change in the supported child's needs or the supporting parent's financial ability. Smith v. Smith, 275 S.C. 494, 272 S.E.2d 797 (1980); Calvert v. Calvert, 287 S.C. 130, 336 S.E.2d 884 (Ct.App.1985). The father has not convinced me that his financial cond......
-
Riggs v. Riggs, No. 25598.
...Husband's remaining issues are without merit and we dispose of them pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR. See Issue IV: Smith v. Smith, 275 S.C. 494, 272 S.E.2d 797 (1980); Hatfield v. Hatfield, 327 S.C. 360, 489 S.E.2d 212 (Ct.App.1997) (issue must be raised to and ruled on by family court to be......
-
Bakala v. Bakala, No. 25586.
...compliance with the Hague Service Convention was never raised to the family court. Accordingly, we decline to address it. Smith v. Smith, 275 S.C. 494, 272 S.E.2d 797 (1980) (issue not raised to family court not preserved for review on Similarly, Husband raises for the first time on appeal ......
-
Calvert v. Calvert, No. 0578
...modifiable upon a proper showing of a change in either the child's needs or the supporting parent's financial ability. Smith v. Smith, 275 S.C. 494, 272 S.E.2d 797 (1980), S.C. Code of Laws § 20-3-160 (1976); see 24 Am.Jur.2d Divorce and Separation § 844 at 958 (1966). But whether the famil......
-
Petition of White, No. 1393
...support upon a proper showing of a change in the supported child's needs or the supporting parent's financial ability. Smith v. Smith, 275 S.C. 494, 272 S.E.2d 797 (1980); Calvert v. Calvert, 287 S.C. 130, 336 S.E.2d 884 (Ct.App.1985). The father has not convinced me that his financial cond......