Stevenson v. Stevenson, 21498

Citation279 S.E.2d 616,276 S.C. 475
Decision Date22 June 1981
Docket NumberNo. 21498,21498
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
PartiesEmily G. STEVENSON, Appellant, v. Jacob C. STEVENSON, Jr., Respondent.

Kermit S. King, Columbia, for appellant.

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

NESS, Justice:

Appellant Emily 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
105 cases
  • Hunnicutt v. Hunnicutt
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 12 Enero 2006
    ......App. 1996). However,. this broad scope of review does not require us to disregard. the family court's findings. Stevenson v. Stevenson , 276 S.C. 475, 477, 279 S.E.2d 616, 617. (1981). Nor must we ignore the fact that the trial judge, who. saw and heard ......
  • Badeaux v. Davis
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 20 Septiembre 1999
    ...This broad scope of review does not, however, require this Court to disregard the findings of the family court. Stevenson v. Stevenson, 276 S.C. 475, 279 S.E.2d 616 (1981). I. Rule 26(a), SCRFC Father raises several issues for consideration regarding the validity of the order issued by the ......
  • Calhoun v. Calhoun
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 17 Febrero 1998
    ...157 (1992). This scope of review, however, does not require us to disregard the findings of the family court. Stevenson v. Stevenson, 276 S.C. 475, 279 S.E.2d 616 (1981). Neither are we required to ignore the fact that the family court judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better......
  • Wooten v. Wooten
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 2 Mayo 2005
    ...scope of review does not, however, require the appellate court to disregard the findings of the family court. Stevenson v. Stevenson, 276 S.C. 475, 279 S.E.2d 616 (1981). Neither is the appellate court required to ignore the fact that the family court, who saw and heard the witnesses, was i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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