705 S.E.2d 86
S.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Husband Andrew Myers and Wife Martha Myers were married nine years; no children.
- Wife filed for divorce on grounds including desertion; trial held in one day; no children.
- Wife earned about $2,455/mo as a bank teller; Husband earned about $7,116/mo plus other business benefits from his own agency.
- Family court found certain assets nonmarital (business, marital home) but awarded Wife a special equity in renovations funded by premarital funds and multiple items of marital property to Wife.
- Court awarded Wife alimony of $3,000/mo based on inflated expense claims; later reduced to $2,000/mo on review.
- Issues on appeal included alimony amount, division of assets (Acura, ring, fur coat, F-150, bank account), and attorney’s fees allocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alimony amount was excessive | Myers argues alimony was too high. | Myers contends the award balanced needs and income. | Alimony reduced to $2,000/mo |
| Equitable division—Acura, ring, fur coat | Awarded items should be offset within one-third share. | Items were marital, indivisible, and properly allocated to Wife. | Items awarded to Wife upheld as within discretion |
| F-150 truck as marital asset | Truck should be marital since funds from joint account used. | Inheritance funds were traceable; asset remains nonmarital. | Truck excluded from marital estate; not marital property |
| Attorney's fees allocation | Husband should pay 60% due to outcomes. | Reduction warranted due to decreased alimony and assets; transportation of results. | Husband ordered to pay 50% of Wife's attorney’s fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Hatfield v. Hatfield, 327 S.C. 360, 489 S.E.2d 212 (Ct.App.1997) (factors for alimony; long marriages and standard of living considerations)
- Lassiter v. Lassiter, 289 S.C. 341, 345 S.E.2d 504 (Ct.App.1986) (multiple marriages and lack of children in alimony context)
- Eagerton v. Eagerton, 285 S.C. 279, 328 S.E.2d 912 (Ct.App.1985) (rehabilitative alimony considerations)
- Craig v. Craig, 365 S.C. 285, 617 S.E.2d 359 (Ct.App.2005) (upholding substantial alimony in long marriages with high standard of living)
- Rimer v. Rimer, 361 S.C. 521, 605 S.E.2d 572 (Ct.App.2004) (reasonableness of alimony amounts; standard of living)
- Mallett v. Mallett, 323 S.C. 141, 473 S.E.2d 804 (Ct.App.1996) (context of high lifestyle and duration influencing alimony)
- Donahue v. Donahue, 299 S.C. 353, 384 S.E.2d 741 (Ct.App.1989) (principles of alimony not to penalize or reward improperly)
- Allen v. Allen, 347 S.C. 177, 554 S.E.2d 421 (Ct.App.2001) (duty to craft fit, equitable, and just alimony awards)