Donald v. Donald

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

Bryson Donald,
Jr., Respondent,

v.

Betty Donald, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

 Billy A. Tunstall, Jr., Family Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-337

Submitted June 1, 2008 – Filed July 7,
2008  

AFFIRMED

J. Edwin McDonnell, of Spartanburg, for Appellant.

J. Falkner  Wilkes, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Betty Donald appeals the family court’s termination
of Bryson Donald, Jr.’s alimony obligation.  We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-150
(Supp. 2007) (stating alimony will cease upon continued cohabitation, which is
defined as supported spouse residing with another person in a romantic
relationship for a period of ninety or more consecutive days); Love v. Love,
367 S.C. 493, 497-98, 626 S.E.2d 56, 59 (Ct. App. 2006) (“[C]ourts will treat
the relationship between a supported spouse and a third party as ‘tantamount to
marriage’ and terminate alimony when the two cohabitate for an extended period
of time and some degree of economic reliance between them is established.”); Vance
v. Vance, 287 S.C. 615, 618, 340 S.E.2d 554, 555 (Ct. App. 1986) (finding
living with another, whether it is with a live-in lover, a relative, or a
platonic housemate, changes one’s circumstances and alters his or her required
financial support).

Accordingly,
the family court’s order is

AFFIRMED.[1]

HEARN, C.J., and SHORT, J., and KONDUROS, J., concur.

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