Workman v. Workman

• Decision Date: 10 January 1935
• Docket Number: 13973.
• Parties: WORKMAN v. WORKMAN et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

178 S.E. 121

174 S.C. 490

WORKMAN v. WORKMAN et al.

No. 13973.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 10, 1935

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Sumter County; J. Henry Johnson, Judge.

Action by Eliza Workman against Mrs. O. G. Dorn and others. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, named defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

The decree of the trial court directed to be incorporated in the report of the case is as follows:

The above styled cause comes on to be heard before me upon the pleadings and the report of the master.

I find that the proceedings have been regular, the defendants all duly served, the infant defendants are represented by regularly and properly appointed guardian ad litem who has answered in their behalf.

On motion of Lee & Moise, attorneys for the plaintiff, it is ordered that the report of the master be and same is hereby confirmed except in such particulars as the same may be modified or changed by the terms of this decree.

I find that the plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell and convey to the defendant Mrs. O. G. Dorn the land described in the complaint at and for the price set forth in the complaint. That this is a part and parcel of the tract of land which was devised by the last will and testament of Henry T. Abbott to the plaintiff, who, at the death of testator, was unmarried, "for and during her life and at her death to her children then living, the child of any deceased child taking the parent's share, if none be then living then to those of my kindred who would be entitled to my property under the Statutes of Distribution of South Carolina then of force."

The plaintiff is in possession of the tract of land, which from a survey referred to in the complaint appears to contain 520 acres, and the plantation has depreciated in value because of poor farming operations; the buildings are in a dilapidated condition and need repairs, and the income derived from the plantation has been inconsiderable.

I find that the taxes are unpaid for the year 1933 and amount to $183.30, and the taxes for the prior years are unpaid and amount to $289.20, and the plaintiff alleges that the land will be sold for taxes unless some arrangements can be made to pay the same.

I find that any sale of the land for taxes would only be the life estate of the plaintiff and the rights and interest of the other parties to the action cannot be affected by tax sale but the plaintiff alleges that her children are dependent upon her for a support; that all of her children are parties to this action; that her daughter Rose Abbott Workman is entirely dependent upon the plaintiff for a support; that her daughter Frances Douglas Workman is a student at Coker College, and that she is indebted to Coker College for the expenses incurred in 1932; that the said Frances Douglas Workman obtained a scholarship in 1933, but that she has to make some payments to the said college; and that at the time of this action the said Frances Douglas Workman was in her third year at college and this daughter should be educated. I find that the plaintiff's other two children are attending the public schools in Sumter, S. C they need clothing; they need to have other expenses paid and all of these facts the plaintiff shows as matters of necessity for the sale and disposition of part of the premises passing under the will of the testator, and in which the plaintiff has a life estate.

Now it is the plaintiff's duty to support her children if she can and has the means. If she has not the means, then the children's property should support them; that is a general statement of the law as I understand it.

The plaintiff alleges that the total rentals received from the land in 1932 were less than $400, and at the time of the commencement of this action it seemed that the plaintiff would collect less than $400 in 1933.

I find that there are seven tenant houses and barns on this plantation; that they are in a dilapidated condition and need repairs, and will become absolutely uninhabitable if not repaired, and at the time of the commencement of this action it was estimated that it would cost about $150 to put them in repair.

The plaintiff alleges that she has a policy of life insurance that she has been obliged to carry, and that she has heretofore had to mortgage her life estate in the said plantation for $300; that the interest has not been paid on that mortgage and this policy of life insurance is for $500 and is held as additional security by the holder of the mortgage of her life estate; and that mortgage was given to secure money borrowed for the benefit of her children.

The plaintiff states in the complaint that she realizes her life estate in said plantation and the policy of life insurance may be sold for the purpose of paying her debts, and I hold that the court would not have jurisdiction to direct a sale of part of the land passing under testator's will for the purpose of paying the debts of the life tenant, but the allegation here, and the master finds it to be a fact, and I concur in that finding, that the debt was incurred by the plaintiff for her children, and the money used in their maintenance and support.

The plaintiff alleges that she owns a tract of 50 acres in fee simple, and in order to support her children she was forced to mortgage...