Maryland Family Law Maryland family law opinions and commentary
COLUMBIA, SC — The South Carolina Court of Appeals largely upheld a family court’s divorce judgment resolving disputes over alimony, equitable distribution of real estate, and retirement assets, while modifying the order to clarify how the parties’ retirement accounts should be divided through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).
The court affirmed, with modifications, a divorce judgment awarding the wife permanent periodic alimony, ordering the sale of most marital real estate, and equally dividing the marital estate, while clarifying the method for calculating and dividing the marital portion of the husband’s retirement accounts through a QDRO.
The husband challenged the award of $2,500 per month in permanent periodic alimony, arguing it should terminate when he reaches mandatory retirement age because his future income would decline. The appellate court rejected that argument, finding the family court properly considered the statutory alimony factors, including the parties’ incomes and expenses, and explaining that any future retirement remains speculative. The court further noted that South Carolina law expressly permits a supporting spouse to seek modification of alimony upon retirement if circumstances materially change, and the family court had clarified that its order did not preclude such a future request.
The court also affirmed the decision requiring the parties’ marital home, adjoining pastureland, and rental property to be sold rather than divided in kind. Although South Carolina law generally favors in-kind distribution of marital property, the court concluded a sale was appropriate because of the highly contentious nature of the divorce, the disputed values of the properties, and the practical difficulties of awarding the marital residence—located next to the wife’s parents’ home—to the husband. The court likewise upheld the family court’s treatment of an undeveloped parcel owned through a limited liability company, finding that because neither the company nor the wife’s business partner had been joined as parties, the family court lacked authority to order a sale of the property and instead properly divided the wife’s ownership interest.
On the retirement accounts, the court rejected the husband’s argument that the family court overstated the marital portion by failing to credit alleged premarital and post-filing contributions. It found the husband failed to present sufficient evidence documenting any premarital contributions and abandoned portions of his appellate argument by failing to provide supporting legal authority. Nevertheless, the court modified the family court’s order to provide more detailed instructions for dividing the pension and 401(k) accounts, including specifying the marital percentage applicable to one pension, confirming an equal division of one Schwab account, and establishing procedures for calculating the marital portion of another account if the parties cannot agree. Because the appellate court found no reversible error in the family court’s rulings on alimony or equitable distribution, it affirmed the judgment in all other respects.
Updegraff v. Updegraff (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-043-26, 11 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Cherokee County Family Court (Matthew P. Turner, J.) Max Thomas Hyde, Jr., of Hyde Law Firm, P.A. of Spartanburg, and Sarah P. Spruill and Reid T. Sherard, both of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, PA, of Greenville, all for Appellant. Richard H. Rhodes and William Hardwick Rhodes, of Burts Turner & Rhodes, and Allison Peters Dunham, all of Spartanburg, for Respondent. South Carolina Court of Appeals Unpublished
