Marchant v. Marchant

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Delores I. Marchant,       
Appellant,

v.

Steve M. Marchant and Gloria Lyons, Defendants,

Of Whom Steve M. Marchant is,       
Respondent.

Appeal From Dorchester County

William J. Wylie, Jr., Family Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-685

Submitted September 17, 2003 – Filed
November 24, 2003

REVERSED AND REMANDED

James B. Richardson, Jr., of Columbia, for Appellant.

Steve M. Marchant, of Harleyville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Delores I. Marchant (“Wife”)
appeals a family court order denying her request for alimony and attorney fees. 
We reverse and remand. [1]

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Wife and Steve M. Marchant (“Husband”) were married
in October 1992.  The parties have two minor sons.  Wife moved out of the
marital home with the two children after discovering Husband’s infidelity. 
Wife and the children moved into a rental house the couple owned which had fallen
into disrepair from misuse by the previous tenant. 

The family court had evidence of each spouse’s economic
status.  This evidence established that Wife received social security disability
checks in the amount of $556 a month, plus child support payments.  In contrast,
Husband has been steadily employed as an electrician with a monthly income of
$3,800. 

The family court granted Wife a divorce on the ground
of adultery.  The court denied Wife’s request for alimony finding the couple
had been married for eight years and the Wife had failed to show that her standard
of living had diminished since the separation.  

The family court awarded the couple’s former rental
home to Wife after finding the mobile home had $50,000 in available equity. 
The mortgage payment on the mobile home is $229 per month.   The family court
also awarded Wife the couple’s $6,000 judgment against the former renter, although
the ability to collect from the renter is in doubt. 

LAW/ANALYSIS

An award of alimony rests with the sound discretion
of the family court and will not be disturbed unless the court abused its discretion. 
Sumter v. Sumter, 280 S.C. 94, 311 S.E.2d 88 (Ct. App. 1984).

The legislature has established
twelve factors a court must consider when determining whether alimony is proper
and in what amounts it should be awarded.  S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-130(c) (Supp.
2002).  The factors are:  1) the length of the marriage and the age of the parties;
2) the physical and emotional conditions of each spouse; 3) the educational
background of each party; 4) the employment history and earning potential of
each party; 5) the standard of living acquired during the marriage; 6) each
parties’ current and future earnings; 7) each parties’ current and future expenses
as well as needs; 8) property owned by each party; 9) custody issues; 10) which
party was at fault for the dissolution of the marriage and how such fault affected
the economics of the parties’ situation; 11) tax consequences of any award;
and 12) prior support obligations as well as other relevant factors.  Although
the family court made findings of fact, it failed to specifically address each
factor as required by the statute.  See Epperly v. Epperly, 312
S.C. 411, 440 S.E.2d 884 (1994).

As the family court failed to follow the enumerated
mandates of S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-130, it abused its discretion with respect
to the denial of alimony. 

Our review of the facts in light of the factors listed
in S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-130 reveals the Wife is entitled to alimony payments. 
The marriage lasted eight years before ending due to Husband’s infidelity. 
Wife is disabled and receives only $556 per month in social security disability
payments plus child support.  Obviously, her disability negatively impacts her
earning potential. Husband is employed as a full-time electrician with monthly
income of $3,600, over six times that of Wife.  Wife was awarded the couple’s
former rental home with a monthly mortgage payment of $229.  While this mobile
home holds some equity, the record reveals it is in poor condition due to misuse
by a former tenant.  Additionally, Wife was awarded custody of the two children
for whom she is chief caregiver.

Because we conclude Wife is entitled to alimony, we
remand this case to the family court for the purpose of determining the appropriate
amount.

In light of our ruling and remand on alimony, the family
court should also revisit the issue of attorney fees and modify the child support
award to comply with the guidelines.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HUFF, STILWELL, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

[1]        We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule
215, SCACR.