Stahl v. Stahl, 21469

Decision Date28 May 1981
Docket NumberNo. 21469,21469
Citation278 S.E.2d 782,276 S.C. 380
PartiesPaul Ronald STAHL, Appellant, v. Pamela Kathleen STAHL, Respondent.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Steven E. Solomon, Myrtle Beach, for appellant.

David R. Gravely, Myrtle Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant initiated this action by filing a Petition in Family Court alleging that respondent was an unfit mother and requesting temporary custody of the three minor children. Respondent filed a Return and Counterclaim in which she denied appellant's allegations and requested that the court give full faith and credit to an Arizona divorce decree awarding custody of the children to respondent.

The court issued its Order giving full faith and credit to the Arizona divorce decree, confirming respondent's right of custody and control of the children and awarding respondent five hundred dollars ($500) for attorney's fees and four hundred dollars ($400) for expenses.

This Order fails to set forth the salient facts upon which the lower court (1) recognized the jurisdiction of the Arizona court to award this decree; (2) confirmed respondent's right of custody and control of the children under that decree; and (3) determined that nine hundred dollars ($900) was an adequate award for attorney's fees and expenses. The Order does not comply with the requirements of Family Court Rule 27(3) and the record is insufficient to permit review by this Court. Garvin v. Garvin, S.C., 271 S.E.2d 413 (1980); Jones v. Jones, 270 S.C. 280, 241 S.E.2d 904 (1978).

Accordingly, we remand to the Family Court for further consideration of the issues and an order setting forth fully the facts upon which the lower court gave full faith and credit to the Arizona decree, confirmed respondent's right of custody of the children, and awarded attorney's fees and expenses.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Atkinson v. Atkinson, 0003
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • November 7, 1983
    ...de novo hearing and direct the court to comply with that rule. Carter v. Carter, 277 S.C. 277, 286 S.E.2d 139 (1982); Stahl v. Stahl, 276 S.C. 380, 278 S.E.2d 782 (1981); Garvin v. Garvin, 275 S.C. 379, 271 S.E.2d 413 In this case, the family court declared a Nevada divorce decree null and ......
  • Condon v. Condon, 0070
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 10, 1984
    ...this court. Atkinson v. Atkinson, 309 S.E.2d 14 (S.C.App.1983); Carter v. Carter, 277 S.C. 277, 286 S.E.2d 139 (1982); Stahl v. Stahl, 276 S.C. 380, 278 S.E.2d 782 (1981). At oral argument, the parties stipulated that the alimony issue had become The granting of the divorce on the ground of......
  • Carter v. Carter, 21623
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 6, 1982
    ...not comply with the requirements of Family Court Rule 27(3), the record is insufficient to permit review by this Court. Stahl v. Stahl, S.C., 278 S.E.2d 782, 1981; Garvin v. Garvin, 275 S.C. 379, 271 S.E.2d 413 Also, the judgment was entered in contravention of Family Court Rule 16. The tri......
  • Chamblee v. Chamblee
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 30, 1982
    ...is in violation of Family Court Rule 27(3). Accordingly, we remand to the family court for compliance with Rule 27. Stahl v. Stahl, 276 S.C. 380, 278 S.E.2d 782 (1981). ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT