Taylor v. Taylor, 20785
| Decision Date | 19 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 20785,20785 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Oscar J. TAYLOR, Jr., Respondent-Appellant, v. Nancy C. TAYLOR, Appellant-Respondent. |
Julius B. Aiken, Greenville, for appellant-respondent.
Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, Greenville, for respondent-appellant.
The parties are husband and wife and are now separated. They have two children, twin daughters nine years of age. While the husband had been contributing to the support of his wife and children, who occupy the family home, dispute arose as to the sufficiency of the support provided; and, to settle the matter, the husband brought this action to have the court determine his obligation, if any, to the wife for alimony and his obligation for the support of the children. After a hearing, the trial judge entered a final order granting custody of the children to the wife and determining the issues relative to alimony, child support, and counsel fees. An appeal by both parties was entered from that order, the wife challenging the adequacy of the award generally and the husband only as to the amount awarded for alimony and counsel fees.
Subsequently, the wife moved to modify the order previously issued, contending that the trial judge had erroneously failed to pass upon matters involving future support, including provision for the anticipated future college educational needs of the children. This motion was denied and, in effect, left those issues for future determination in the light of the then existing facts. This appeal is from both the final order of the lower court and the subsequent order refusing to modify the previous determination.
Pertinent here, the orders under appeal require that the husband pay directly to the wife the sum of $1125.21 each month and, in addition, provide mortgage payments on the residence; tuition for the children in private school; and life, hospital, and medical insurance premiums, in the aggregate, of approximately $414.79 monthly, making a total monthly payment for the benefit of the wife and children approximately $1540.00. In addition, the husband was ordered to provide needed repairs to the residence in which the wife and children reside and to pay counsel fees for the wife's attorney in the amount of $2,000.00. The total monthly payments, directed to be paid directly or for the beneficial interest of the wife and children, were allocated one-fourth to each child and two-fourths to the wife.
The child support payments were ordered to continue until the child or children reach age eighteen (18), or should otherwise become emancipated. Questions concerning the validity of the provision for discontinuance of child support payments at age eighteen (18), admittedly, are in accord with our recent decision in Cason v. Cason, S.C., 247 S.E.2d 673, filed September 18, 1978.
While there are other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Smith
...in the home for his lifetime. Rather, changed circumstances may necessitate a future change in such a provision. Taylor v. Taylor, 271 S.C. 488, 248 S.E.2d 315 (1978). 278 S.C. at 166, 293 S.E.2d When making the support award, however, the family court was required to consider a number of f......
-
Thompson v. Brunson
...Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976 (Supp.1983); Whitfield v. Hanks, 278 S.C. 165, 293 S.E.2d 314 (1982); Taylor v. Taylor, 271 S.C. 488, 248 S.E.2d 315 (1978); Smith v. Smith, 280 S.C. 257, 312 S.E.2d 560 (S.C.App.1984); Jones v. Jones, 281 S.C. 96, 314 S.E.2d 33 While the law is settled ......
-
Anderson v. Tolbert
...litigated and because the law impresses a lien on the property of the husband to insure payment of those fees. Cf. Taylor v. Taylor, 271 S.C. 488, 248 S.E.2d 315 (1978) (court will review an award that is so disproportionate to the service rendered and responsibilities involved to justify a......
-
Whitfield v. Hanks, 21745
...in the home for his lifetime. Rather, changed circumstances may necessitate a future change in such a provision. Taylor v. Taylor, 271 S.C. 488, 248 S.E.2d 315 (1978). We hold the family court had authority to modify the provision based on a proper showing of changed conditions. Appellant d......