Jackson v. Jackson

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR
RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2),
SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Sandra Kay
Jackson, Respondent,

v.

Franklin Jackson, Appellant.

Appeal From Cherokee County

Jerry D. Vinson, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-110

Submitted March 1, 2011 – Filed March 16,
2011

AFFIRMED

William G. Rhoden, of Gaffney, for
Appellant.

Noel Turner, of Spartanburg, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Franklin
Jackson (Husband) appeals the family court's order awarding Sandra Kay Jackson (Wife) half of the
marital estate and $1,975 in monthly alimony.  We affirm.[1]

1. As to whether the
family court erred in awarding Wife half of the marital estate: The family court properly considered the relevant
factors in apportioning the marital property and made extensive written and
oral findings regarding these factors.  See S.C.
Code Ann. § 20-3-620 (Supp. 2010); Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 213, 634 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006) ("The division of marital
property is in the family court's discretion and will not be disturbed absent
an abuse of that discretion.").  Additionally, the record contains evidence supporting each of those
findings. 

Husband's argument that the
family court placed an extensive amount of weight on the length of marriage is
without merit.  The duration of the marriage is a factor the family court must
consider.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-620(1). Furthermore, Husband failed to
demonstrate special circumstances that would merit a deviation from the
equitable division of the marital property.  SeeAvery v. Avery,
370 S.C. 304, 312, 634 S.E.2d 668, 672 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding if a
party can show special circumstances the family court can tilt "the
equitable division scale in favor of one spouse").  Although Husband contributed more financially than
Wife, both parties contributed financially to the marital estate.  Additionally,
Wife served as the primary caretaker of the home and child.   Moreover, Husband
was in a better financial position because he was still employed and planned on
working until he reached full retirement. 

2. As to whether the
family court erred in awarding Wife $1,975 in monthly alimony:  The family court did not abuse its discretion in
ordering Husband to pay Wife $1,975 in monthly alimony.  See Davis v. Davis, 372 S.C. 64, 79, 641 S.E.2d 446, 453-54 (Ct.
App. 2006) ("An award of alimony rests
within the sound discretion of the family court and will not be disturbed
absent an abuse of discretion.").  In awarding Wife alimony, the family court considered the length of
marriage, Husband's and Wife's ages and health, educational background and
employment history of each spouse, their standard of living, anticipated
earnings and expenses of each spouse, and marital and non-marital property. 
The family court properly considered the relevant factors in determining the
amount of alimony, and the record contains evidence supporting each of those
findings.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-130(C) (Supp. 2010); see also Davis, 372 S.C. at 80, 641 S.E.2d at 454 ("Our inquiry on appeal is not whether the family court
gave the same weight to particular factors as this court would have; rather,
our inquiry extends only to whether the family court abused its considerable
discretion in assigning weight to the applicable factors."). 

Additionally, Husband's
argument that the alimony was excessive is without merit because the alimony
would provide Wife with sufficient funds to cover her expenses and it did not
provide her with significant additional funds.  Furthermore, Husband's argument
that Wife is not entitled to alimony because she has inherited a home and has
received a significant marital estate is unpersuasive.   The purpose of alimony
is to ensure Wife is in the similar position as she experienced during her
marriage.  Currently, Wife's only monthly income is $1,057 in social security
benefits, but her expenses total over $2,500, leaving her a deficit of $1,465
per month.  Accordingly, the record supports a finding that alimony is
necessary to maintain her lifestyle.  Furthermore, the family court noted that
it adjusted Husband's alimony requirements due to Wife's inherited property. 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and PIEPER,
JJ., concur.

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