Miles v. Miles, 711 S.E.2d 880

March 2000 divorce case; parties reached agreement on health insurance, custody, child support, and waiver of alimony; final decree incorporated the agreement; provision required Husband to maintain Wife’s health/dental insurance until remarriage or spouses’ employment provides equivalent coverage; no language limiting modification of the agreement.
Six years later, Husband sought modification of several terms, including health insurance obligation; Wife had no current employer health coverage and had not remarried at the time; dispute focused on whether insurance provision was modifiable form of support or a non-modifiable property division.
Family court found the insurance provision unambiguously non-modifiable due to waiver of alimony; Court of Appeals affirmed; Supreme Court granted certiorari to reexamine the issue.
The Court held the agreement unambiguously provides a modifiable incident of support in the form of health and dental insurance.
The Court also found Husband demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances, including medical deterioration and disability, warranting modification, and remanded for determination of the form and any potential reimbursement for excess payments.
Justice Pleicones authored a partial concurrence/dissent on the record-facing factual review aspect and would remand for fact-finding by the family court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the health-insurance obligation modifiable as support?	Miles argues the provision is a form of support.	Miles contends the waiver of alimony shows non-modifiability.	The provision unambiguously constitutes modifiable spousal support.
Does a substantial change in circumstances warrant modification of the insurance obligation?	Miles showed unanticipated medical decline and reduced earnings.	Wife argues conditions were anticipated or not sufficient for modification.	Yes; substantial change in circumstances supports modification and remand for mechanics and potential reimbursements.

Moseley v. Mosier, 279 S.C. 348, 306 S.E.2d 624 (1983) (unmodifiable terms unless agreement unambiguously denies court jurisdiction)
Sharpe v. Sharpe, 307 S.C. 540, 416 S.E.2d 215 (Ct.App.1992) (health insurance treated as form of support)
Wood v. Wood, 292 S.C. 43, 354 S.E.2d 796 (Ct.App.1987) (health insurance awarded as support)
Floyd v. Morgan, 383 S.C. 469, 681 S.E.2d 570 (2009) (burden to modify set forth when based on agreement)
Upchurch v. Upchurch, 367 S.C. 16, 624 S.E.2d 643 (2006) (burden to prove changed circumstances in modification context)
Townsend v. Townsend, 356 S.C. 70, 587 S.E.2d 118 (Ct.App.2003) (even heavier burden when support is based on a settlement)
Smith-Cooper v. Cooper, 344 S.C. 289, 543 S.E.2d 271 (Ct.App.2001) (contract interpretation governs extrajudicial agreements)
Moseley v. Mosier, 279 S.C. 348, 306 S.E.2d 624 (1983) (unambiguous denial of modification must be explicit)
Rutherford v. Rutherford, 307 S.C. 199, 414 S.E.2d 160 (1992) (de novo review of family court findings on modification)