McNeill v. McNeill

2 Citing cases

  1. Cooper v. Cooper

    289 S.C. 377 (S.C. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 11 times

    Although the evidence shows that the husband acquired the land by gift from his father during the marriage, it also shows, and we so find, that the property lost its nonmarital character and therefore became subject to equitable distribution when the husband, nine years before the parties separated, erected the marital home thereon and thereby used the 1.4-acre tract in support of the marriage. See McNeill v. McNeill, 343 S.E.2d 626 (S.C. 1986) (in a domestic case, the Supreme Court's scope of review extends to the finding of facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence); Trimnal v. Trimnal, 287 S.C. 495, 339 S.E.2d 869 (1986) (gift component of an interest in a home acquired by husband prior to marriage viewed as marital property where the gift component commingled with marital property); Hussey v. Hussey, 280 S.C. 418, 312 S.E.2d 267 (Ct.App. 1984) (property may lose its nonmarital character when it is utilized by the parties in support of the marriage); Cooksey v. Cooksey, 280 S.C. 347, 352, 312 S.E.2d 581, 585 (Ct.App. 1984) ("If inherited property, nonmarital at the time of its acquisition, is utilized by the parties in support of the marriage, it is transmuted into marital property"); cf. Rampey v. Rampey, 286 S.C. 153, 332 S.E.2d 213 (Ct.App., 1985) (family farm viewed as marital property where it was transferred by heirs at law from estate of wife's father to wife and husband jointly and wife and

  2. Chastain v. Chastain

    346 S.E.2d 33 (S.C. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 9 times
    Finding that father with master's degree voluntarily removed himself from the job market to attend law school and his earning potential was properly considered in calculating child support

    This court, however, may determine the facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. See McNeill v. McNeill, 343 S.E.2d 626 (1986) (in a domestic case, the Supreme Court's scope of review extends to the finding of facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence). In our view, based on the record and the applicable Shaluly factors, the trial judge in this instance abused his discretion in awarding the middle-aged husband of this 19-year marriage only 25 percent of the equity in the marital home, payable at some undeterminable point in the future with no interest on the equity.