Spires v. Higgins, 20795

• Decision Date: 25 October 1978
• Docket Number: No. 20795,20795
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: J. Fred SPIRES, Respondent, v. Carol Welch Spires HIGGINS, Appellant.

Page 488

248 S.E.2d 488

271 S.C. 530

J. Fred SPIRES, Respondent, v. Carol Welch Spires HIGGINS, Appellant.

No. 20795.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Oct. 25, 1978.

Ham & Richardson, Columbia, for appellant.

Bryan, Crosby & Bates, West Columbia, for respondent.

GREGORY, Justice:

Carol Welch Spires Higgins appeals from an order of the lower court ordering the respondent J. Fred Spires to pay child support in the amount of sixty five ($65.00) dollars per month. The issue is whether the lower court's award of child support is so inadequate as to require reversal. We reverse and remand for an award of additional child support.

The parties were divorced by order of the Lexington County Juvenile-Domestic Relations Court dated September 25, 1963. Mrs. Higgins was awarded custody of the couple's two minor daughters and Mr. Spires was ordered to pay child support in the amount of fifteen ($15.00) dollars per week.

By order dated February 2, 1968 the amount of child support was increased to one hundred ($100.00) dollars per month.

In June 1977, Mr. Spires petitioned the Lexington County Family Court to terminate his obligation to support the couple's older daughter who became eighteen years old in February 1977. Mr. Spires also sought to have the amount of child support reduced to fifty ($50.00) dollars per month.

Mrs. Higgins replied to the petition and counterclaimed seeking an increase in child support.

By order dated October 17, 1977 the lower court terminated Mr. Spires' obligation to support the couple's eighteen year old daughter and ordered Mr. Spires to pay sixty five ($65.00) dollars per month for the support of the minor daughter until she attains the age of eighteen on June 3, 1979. This appeal by Mrs. Higgins followed.

On appeal from an order of the family court this Court has jurisdiction to review the entire record to determine the facts in accordance with our own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Jones v. Jones, S.C., 241 S.E.2d 904 (1978). This broad scope of review in equity cases does not require us, however, to disregard the findings of the lower court, nor does it relieve the appellant of the burden of convincing this Court that the lower court committed error. Cook v. Cobb, S.C., 245 S.E.2d 612 (1978); Allbritton v. Allbritton, 260 S.C. 61, 194 S.E.2d 197 (1973).

Mrs. Higgins first contends the lower court erred by requiring Mr. Spires to pay only sixty five ($65.00) dollars per month for the support of the couple's minor daughter. Mrs. Higgins argues that in view of the daughter's needs and Mr. Spires' ability to pay, the trial judge abused his discretion by not awarding a larger amount as child support.

The amount to be awarded as child support is within the sound discretion of the trial judge whose award thereof will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Smith v. Smith, 264 S.C. 624, 216 S.E.2d 541 (1975).

Here, the lower court refused to make a larger award of child support after finding that Mr. Spires' ability to pay child support had increased only nominally. The lower court stated:

I further find and take judicial notice of cost of living increases since the last Order of this Court on May 19, 1971 (affirming and incorporating the order of February 2, 1968) but that the Petitioner, J. Fred Spires' increase in income has been nominal, not substantial; . . .

The evidence in this case reveals that...