Ward v. Marturano, No. 1511

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtSHAW
Citation394 S.E.2d 16,302 S.C. 112
PartiesJames M. WARD, Respondent, v. Arlene R. MARTURANO, Appellant. . Heard
Decision Date07 May 1990
Docket NumberNo. 1511

Page 16

394 S.E.2d 16
302 S.C. 112
James M. WARD, Respondent,
v.
Arlene R. MARTURANO, Appellant.
No. 1511.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard May 7, 1990.
Decided June 18, 1990.

Page 17

[302 S.C. 113] Ann L. Furr, of Furr & Delgado, Columbia, for appellant.

Joseph M. Fullwood and Elizabeth C. Fullwood, both of Fullwood & Fullwood, Lexington, for respondent.

SHAW, Judge:

Respondent, James M. Ward, instituted this action seeking a reduction in child support. Appellant, Arlene R. Marturano, answered and counterclaimed seeking an increase in child support. From an order of the family court granting an increase but allowing the father's social security dependent allotment to satisfy a portion of the child support, the mother appeals. We affirm.

The parties to this action were married June 29, 1984 and divorced October 9, 1985. Of this marriage, one child was born who was four years old at the time of the hearing. Pursuant to a settlement agreement approved and adopted in part by the divorce decree, the father was ordered to pay child support of $275.00 monthly. At the time of divorce, the father was employed as a professor at the University of South Carolina. However, the record clearly demonstrates both parties anticipated the father would soon be retiring from his faculty position and would suffer a reduction in his income. On July 1, 1986, the father, who was 62 years old at the time of the hearing, retired from his faculty position. Shortly before he became eligible for social security benefits, the father learned his daughter was also entitled to social security benefits. The father testified, and the mother does not dispute, he was not aware at the time of the divorce that his daughter would be entitled to the benefits.

Upon reaching the age of 62 on January 30, 1988 the father, along with his daughter, became eligible for social security benefits. Since that time the mother has been receiving benefits for the daughter in the amount of $346.00 per month. Following a hearing on the matter, the trial judge found the [302 S.C. 114] child's eligibility for benefits constituted a change of circumstances warranting reconsideration of child support. He increased the monthly child support to $400.00 but found the father was entitled to credit for the amount paid as social security benefits. Thus, the father was required to pay the difference between the $400.00 and the monthly benefit. The trial judge further found the father was entitled to credit for the past social security payments for the benefit of the child and that the father was not required to make any monthly payments until the accumulated credit due him was exhausted. The court further ordered the mother was to receive $300.00 in attorney's fees from the father finding the $600.00 fee charged by her attorney was reasonable.

The mother first contends...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Smith v. Smith, No. 4638.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 9, 2009
    ...court until it was repealed with the enactment of the South Carolina Rules of Family Court on September 1, 1988. See Ward v. Marturano, 302 S.C. 112, 115, 394 S.E.2d 16, 18 (Ct.App.1990) (stating former Rule 12 required pleadings to be liberally construed); Rule 2(d), SCRFC ("All Rules......
  • Scott v. Scott, Appellate Case No. 2015-002496
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 17, 2018
    ...benefits paid for the support of the children." Justice , 286 S.C. at 166, 332 S.E.2d at 107 ; see also Ward v. Marturano , 302 S.C. 112, 114–15, 394 S.E.2d 16, 18 (Ct. App. 1990) (finding no error in the family court's decision "to credit [a father] with the amount of social secu......
  • Balloon Plantation, Inc. v. Head Balloons, Inc., No. 1567
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 8, 1990
    ...sanctions other than the "failure of Defendants to timely comply." See Ward v. [303 S.C. 157] Marturano, --- S.C. ----, ----, 394 S.E.2d 16, 18 (Ct.App.1990) (a written order must be consistent with the "ruling from the Page 442 C The Balloon Plantation argues that the appeal......
  • First Union Nat. Bank of South Carolina v. Hitman, Inc., No. 1731
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 11, 1991
    ...338 (1983). This Court has cited the rule in several opinions, but it has never relied on it to reverse a trial court. Ward v. Marturano, 302 S.C. 112, 394 S.E.2d 16 (Ct.App.1990); Lukacs v. Walker, 301 S.C. 80, 390 S.E.2d 365 (Ct.App.1990); Josey v. Josey, 291 S.C. 26, 351 S.E.2d 891 (Ct.A......
4 cases
  • Smith v. Smith, No. 4638.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 9, 2009
    ...court until it was repealed with the enactment of the South Carolina Rules of Family Court on September 1, 1988. See Ward v. Marturano, 302 S.C. 112, 115, 394 S.E.2d 16, 18 (Ct.App.1990) (stating former Rule 12 required pleadings to be liberally construed); Rule 2(d), SCRFC ("All Rules......
  • Scott v. Scott, Appellate Case No. 2015-002496
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 17, 2018
    ...benefits paid for the support of the children." Justice , 286 S.C. at 166, 332 S.E.2d at 107 ; see also Ward v. Marturano , 302 S.C. 112, 114–15, 394 S.E.2d 16, 18 (Ct. App. 1990) (finding no error in the family court's decision "to credit [a father] with the amount of social secu......
  • Balloon Plantation, Inc. v. Head Balloons, Inc., No. 1567
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 8, 1990
    ...sanctions other than the "failure of Defendants to timely comply." See Ward v. [303 S.C. 157] Marturano, --- S.C. ----, ----, 394 S.E.2d 16, 18 (Ct.App.1990) (a written order must be consistent with the "ruling from the Page 442 C The Balloon Plantation argues that the appeal......
  • First Union Nat. Bank of South Carolina v. Hitman, Inc., No. 1731
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 11, 1991
    ...338 (1983). This Court has cited the rule in several opinions, but it has never relied on it to reverse a trial court. Ward v. Marturano, 302 S.C. 112, 394 S.E.2d 16 (Ct.App.1990); Lukacs v. Walker, 301 S.C. 80, 390 S.E.2d 365 (Ct.App.1990); Josey v. Josey, 291 S.C. 26, 351 S.E.2d 891 (Ct.A......

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