732 S.E.2d 213
S.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Husband and Wife married in 1978, separated in 2006, and obtained a divorce in 2007 based on one year of separation.
- A November 2006 settlement incorporated alimony: $600 per month plus 20% of Husband's gross annual bonus; child support $400 per month; joint custody with Wife as primary custodian.
- In 2009, Husband lost his job; he sought termination or reduction of alimony; temporary order reduced alimony to $150 per month but kept the bonus provision.
- By 2011, both parties filed updated financial declarations; final order reinstated $600 alimony but removed the 20% bonus requirement.
- The family court concluded the alimony obligation as a percentage of income had slightly increased and retained $600/month; Husband challenged the decision as a change in circumstances not adequately considered.
- The appellate court ultimately reduced alimony from $600 to $275 per month, affirming the modification and removing the bonus provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the alimony should be reduced due to a substantial change in circumstances. | Husband argues changed finances justify reduction. | Wife argues no sufficient change to warrant reduction. | Reduction to $275 per month affirmed. |
| Whether the court properly applied the statutory alimony factors beyond simple income percentages. | Husband contends factors support reduction. | Wife contends factors support maintaining $600. | Court erred by not adequately considering statutory factors; remanded in effect to reduce alimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Allen, 347 S.C. 177, 554 S.E.2d 421 (Ct.App.2001) (alimony aims to place the supported spouse in the position she enjoyed during marriage)
- Miles v. Miles, 355 S.C. 511, 586 S.E.2d 136 (Ct.App.2003) (consider initial and future earning potential in modification)
- Penny v. Green, 357 S.C. 583, 594 S.E.2d 171 (Ct.App.2004) (change in circumstances must be substantial and unanticipated)
- Kelley v. Kelley, 324 S.C. 481, 477 S.E.2d 727 (Ct.App.1996) (burden on requesting party to show unforeseen change by preponderance)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 296 S.C. 289, 372 S.E.2d 107 (Ct.App.1988) (alimony is a substitute for marital support during its existence)
- Butler v. Butler, 385 S.C. 328, 684 S.E.2d 191 (Ct.App.2009) (expenses of the supported spouse may be relevant to alimony calculation)
- Pinckney v. Warren, 344 S.C. 382, 544 S.E.2d 620 (2001) (family court credibility and equity considerations in awards)