Stevenson v. Stevenson

• Decision Date: 22 June 1981
• Docket Number: No. 21498,21498
• Citation: 279 S.E.2d 616,276 S.C. 475
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Emily G. STEVENSON, Appellant, v. Jacob C. STEVENSON, Jr., Respondent.

Page 616

279 S.E.2d 616

276 S.C. 475

Emily G. STEVENSON, Appellant, v.Jacob C. STEVENSON, Jr., Respondent.

No. 21498.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 22, 1981.

Kermit S. King, Columbia, for appellant.

Walter B. Brown, Jr., of Martin & Brown, Winnsboro, for respondent.

NESS, Justice:

AppellantEmily G. Stevenson instituted this action to increase child support from $137.50 per month, awarded in a 1972 divorce decree, to $250.00.The family court judge found there had been a change in circumstances and increased child support to $175.00.We affirm and modify.

Appellant first asserts the family court erred in considering appellant's income in making its determination of whether the increase was warranted.We disagree.

In Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 99 S.Ct. 1102, 59 L.Ed.2d 306(1979), the United States Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Alabama alimony statute because it discriminated on the basis of sex.Subsequent to Orr, our legislature reviewed gender based statutes and amended S.C.Code § 14-21-820(1980 Cum.Supp.), to make it gender neutral.The statute now requires a family court judge to take into account the income of husband and wife when determining the issue of support.

The issue of child support is subject to the continuing review of the family court and to modification upon a showing of a change in circumstances.Benedict v. Benedict, S.C., 268 S.E.2d 292(1980).Moreover, the family court judge was required to take judicial notice of the amendment to § 14-21-820, therefore, he did not err by taking into account appellant's income in determining whether there had been a change in circumstances.See: State v. Broad River Power Co., et al., 177 S.C. 240, 181 S.E. 41(1935).

We have jurisdiction, on appeal from an order of the family court, to find facts in accordance with our view of the preponderance or greater weight of the evidence.Clinkscales v. Clinkscales, S.C., 270 S.E.2d 715(1980).However, this broad scope of review does not require us to disregard the findings of the lower court nor does it relieve the appellant of the burden of convincing us that the lower court committed error.Spires v. Higgins, 271 S.C. 530, 248 S.E.2d 488(1978).

Our examination of the record substantiates the family court's finding of a change in circumstances because of the increased cost of maintaining the child and the relative incomes of the parties.Moreover, the record sustains appellant's view that respondent's earning...