Witt v. Witt
| Decision Date | 26 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 20797,20797 |
| Citation | 248 S.E.2d 494,271 S.C. 541 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | James H. WITT, Appellant, v. Benzie C. WITT, Respondent. |
Judson F. Ayers, Jr., Greenwood, for appellant.
Eugene C. Griffith, Newberry, for respondent.
The plaintiff-wife was granted a default divorce from the defendant-husband on March 7, 1977. The decree ordered the husband to pay four hundred dollars per month child support plus two hundred dollars per month alimony. No appeal was taken from the order.
On August 19, 1977, the husband petitioned the court to reduce the amount of child support and alimony on the theory of a change of condition. The court denied the application, ruling that no change of condition had been shown. The husband has appealed.
After hearing oral arguments we ordered, under Rule 2 of this court, that the transcript of the original proceedings be filed with our clerk. We now have before us the testimony taken in the default case, the report of the referee, and the decree of the judge. 1
In order to warrant a reduction in alimony or child support, it is necessary to show a substantial change of condition. Smith v. Smith, 262 S.C. 291, 204 S.E.2d 53 (1974). The requirement that a change of condition must be shown presupposes that a "condition," as a basis for the prior decree, has been established.
A review of the record shows that in the initial divorce hearing there was no evidence whatsoever of the financial condition of the husband or of his ability to pay. The nearest approach to imparting information to the court is as follows:
"(Q) Mrs. Witt (wife), where does your husband work?
(A) Wingard's Pharmacy.
(Q) He's a registered pharmacist?
(A) Yes, he is."
Based on the testimony taken, the special referee said:
"I further find that the defendant (husband) is a registered pharmacist earning a substantial income and the needs of the parties are such that the defendant should be required to pay to the Clerk of Court the sum of Four Hundred and No/100 ($400.00) Dollars each month for the support of his minor child and the sum of Two Hundred and No/100 ($200.00) Dollars each month for the support of his wife."
The trial judge adopted the referee's report.
In the recent case of Howard v. Holliday Inns, Inc., S.C., 246 S.E.2d 880 (1978), this court discussed the requirements of plaintiff's proof in default cases. We said:
We held that the lower court erred " . . . in awarding damages because there was no evidence before it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Smith, 21347
...divorce decree may be shown by extraordinary medical expenses when they were not dealt with in the original decree. Witt v. Witt, 271 S.C. 541, 248 S.E.2d 494 (1978); Moesley v. Moesley, 263 S.C. 1, 207 S.E.2d 403 (1974); also see cases collected at 27B C.J.S. Divorce § 322(2) Here, the med......
-
Strout v. Strout
...a condition was established thus requiring a "change of circumstances" in any subsequent hearing for modification. Witt v. Witt, 271 S.C. 541, 248 S.E.2d 494 (1978). Oddly, at this time, the parties were attempting a reconciliation. However, they separated on October 11, 1980. We hold this ......
-
Lever v. Lever, 21815
...instance are conditions and circumstances which were not established as "conditions" of the prior support order. See Witt v. Witt, 271 S.C. 541, 248 S.E.2d 494 (1978). Mrs. Lever established, and the family court considered, the fact that a boarder who moved in with her after the final divo......
-
Belue v. Belue
...modification on the basis of change of condition of those parts of the family court order which are variable. See Witt v. Witt, 271 S.C. 541, 248 S.E.2d 494 (1978). This appeal is therefore LEWIS, C. J., and NESS, GREGORY and HARWELL, JJ., concur. LITTLEJOHN, J., concurs in result only. ...