Burkett v. Burkett

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Timothy J. Burkett, Appellant,

v.

Rose M. Burkett, Respondent.

Appeal From Richland County

 Kellum W. Allen, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-005

Submitted January 1, 2007 – Filed January 11, 2007

REVERSED

Timothy J. Burkett, pro se, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Rose M. Burkett, pro se, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Husband filed a complaint seeking a divorce based solely on a one year continuous separation.  At the final hearing, the family court addressed other issues, including the award of alimony to Wife, over Husband’s objection.  Husband appeals.  We reverse.[1]

We reverse for several reasons.  First, Wife filed no pleadings in the family court and at no time sought the affirmative relief of alimony.  The family court sua sponte brought up the issue of alimony.  Next, the record is devoid of any consent by Husband in the family court’s consideration of alimony.  Further, Wife never filed a financial declaration as required by Rule 20, SCRFC.  Rule 20, SCRFC, mandates that a party file a financial declaration “[i]n any domestic relations action in which the financial condition of a party is relevant or is an issue to be considered by the court[.]”  Finally, Wife did not file a brief or appear in any way before this court. 

The family court order is

REVERSED.

HEARN, C.J., KITTREDGE and WILLIAMS, J.J., concur.

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