 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Merritt v. Merritt1/10/2005
Heard November 16, 2004
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED
In this appeal arising from a divorce decree, George Todd Merritt (Husband) argues the family court erred in identifying and dividing the marital property, granting custody of the parties' child to Frances Deborah Merritt (Wife), requiring Husband to pay half of the child's private school tuition, and awarding attorney's fees to Wife. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
FACTS
Frances and George Merritt were married in March 1992. During the marriage, the parties accumulated very little personal property because Husband came into the marriage with household goods he had retained from a prior marriage. In July 1993, the couple had a child. Two years later, the couple built a house with the assistance of Husband's family. In June 2000, after eight years of marriage, Wife learned that Husband was committing adultery. Soon thereafter, she initiated divorce proceedings. In 2001, a divorce was granted on the ground of adultery. Pursuant to the parties' divorce, the family court identified and divided marital property, granted primary custody of the child to Wife, required Husband to pay half of the child's private school tuition, and granted Wife attorney's fees. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OR REVIEW
In appeals from the family court, this court has authority to find the facts in accordance with our own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Wynn v. Wynn, 360 S.C. 117, 122, 600 S.E.2d 71, 74 (Ct. App. 2004). However, this broad scope of review does not require us to disregard the findings of the family court. Greene v. Greene, 351 S.C. 329, 335, 569 S.E.2d 393, 397 (Ct. App. 2002). We are mindful that the family court judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony. Roberson v. Roberson, 359 S.C. 384, 388, 597 S.E.2d 840, 842 (Ct. App. 2004). "This is especially true in cases involving the welfare and best interests of children." Dorchester County Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Miller, 324 S.C. 445, 452, 477 S.E.2d 476, 480 (Ct. App. 1996).
The family court has broad discretion in determining how marital property is to be valued and distributed. Murphy v. Murphy, 319 S.C. 324, 329, 461 S.E.2d 39, 41 (1995). Therefore, the family court may use any reasonable means to divide the property equitably, and its judgment will only be disturbed where abuse of discretion is found. Id. at 329, 461 S.E.2d at 41-42.
LAW/ANALYSIS
Husband argues that premarital personal property and a workers' compensation award were improperly transmuted and apportioned. Next, he argues the marital residence was improperly apportioned. Husband also argues that the court's child custody arrangement was in error and that he should not be required to pay private school tuition for his child. Finally, he argues attorney's fees should not have been awarded to Wife.
1. Transmutation of Personal Premarital Property
Husband argues personal premarital property was improperly transmuted because the family court "failed to find any specific facts which would indicate an intent that [the premarital property] become marital other than their mere use during the marriage." We disagree.
Marital property is defined as "all real and personal property which has been acquired by the parties during the marriage and which is owned as of the date of filing or commencement of marital litigation . . . ." S.C. Code Ann. ยง 20-7-473 (Supp. 2003). However, property acquired by either party prior to the marriage can be transmuted in
Page 1 2 3 4 5 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|