Morris v. Morris

13 Citing cases

  1. Pruitt v. Pruitt

    389 S.C. 250 (S.C. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 23 times
    Holding the wife's labor in finishing the construction of the marital home did not show the husband's intent to treat the home as marital property

    In Morris v. Morris, our Supreme Court terminated alimony retroactively merely to the date of the divorce decree rather than to the very first alimony payment. 295 S.C. 37, 41, 367 S.E.2d 24, 26 (1988). However, unlike the Supreme Court's approach in Morris, in Watson v. Watson, this Court required a credit against the wife's equitable distribution award for all alimony paid because the wife's adultery pre-dated the temporary alimony award.

  2. Wooten v. Wooten

    364 S.C. 532 (S.C. 2005)   Cited 84 times
    Holding "[e]ven though Husband prevailed on two of the equitable division issues in this appeal, the beneficial results obtained are only one of several factors to be considered by the family court in deciding whether or not to award attorney's fees"

    Husband contends the family court erred in failing to consider the tax consequences of its order. The apportionment of marital property is within the discretion of the family court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Morris v. Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 39, 367 S.E.2d 24, 24 (1988). In order to effect an equitable apportionment, the family court may require the sale of marital property and a division of the proceeds.

  3. Craig v. Craig

    365 S.C. 285 (S.C. 2005)   Cited 37 times
    Upholding $3,000 permanent periodic alimony when parties were married for twenty-five years, they had a high standard of living, and husband's infidelity led to the break-up of the marriage

    We disagree. The division of marital property is within the discretion of the family court judge and the judge's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Morris v.Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 39, 367 S.E.2d 24, 24 (1988). In order to effect an equitable division of property, the family court may require the sale of marital home.

  4. Lake v. Lake

    Appellate Case No. 2012-211945 (S.C. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2014)

    Id. at 388-89, 709 S.E.2d at 654 (italics omitted). Appellate courts reviewing the equitable division of marital property do not re-weigh the apportionment factors but review the overall apportionment for fairness. Johnson v. Johnson, 296 S.C. 289, 300, 372 S.E.2d 107, 113 (Ct. App. 1988) (citing Morris v. Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 39-40, 367 S.E.2d 24, 25 (1988)). LAW/ANALYSIS

  5. Lake v. Lake

    No. 2014-UP-099 (S.C. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2014)

    Appellate courts reviewing the equitable division of marital property do not re-weigh the apportionment factors but review the overall apportionment for fairness. Johnson v. Johnson, 296 S.C. 289, 300, 372 S.E.2d 107, 113 (Ct. App. 1988) (citing Morris v. Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 39-40, 367 S.E.2d 24, 25 (1988)). LAW/ANALYSIS

  6. Curry v. Curry

    Appellate Case No. 2011-198030 (S.C. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2013)

    Id. at 388-89, 709 S.E.2d at 654. However, appellate courts, in reviewing the equitable division of marital property, look at the overall apportionment for fairness. Johnson v. Johnson, 296 S.C. 289, 300, 372 S.E.2d 107, 113 (Ct. App. 1988) (citing Morris v. Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 39-40, 367 S.E.2d 24, 25 (1988)). LAW/ANALYSIS

  7. Curry v. Curry

    741 S.E.2d 558 (S.C. Ct. App. 2013)

    Id. at 388–89, 709 S.E.2d at 654. However, appellate courts, in reviewing the equitable division of marital property, look at the overall apportionment for fairness. Johnson v. Johnson, 296 S.C. 289, 300, 372 S.E.2d 107, 113 (Ct.App.1988) (citing Morris v. Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 39–40, 367 S.E.2d 24, 25 (1988)). LAW/ANALYSIS

  8. Craig v. Craig

    358 S.C. 548 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 14 times
    Upholding a fifty-fifty division of marital property following a twenty-seven year marriage

    The apportionment of marital property is within the discretion of the family court judge and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. SeeMorris v. Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 39, 367 S.E.2d 24, 25 (1988). South Carolina Code Ann. § 20-7-472 (Supp. 2002) provides the family court must consider fifteen factors and give each weight as it determines.

  9. Widman v. Widman

    348 S.C. 97 (S.C. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 62 times
    Holding an issue is not preserved for appellate review if the party concedes the issue before the family court

    We disagree. The apportionment of marital property is within the discretion of the family court judge and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Morris v. Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 39, 367 S.E.2d 24, 25 (1988);Bungener v. Bungener, 291 S.C. 247, 251, 353 S.E.2d 147, 150 (Ct.App. 1987). South Carolina Code Ann. § 20-7-472 (Supp.

  10. Morehouse v. Morehouse

    317 S.C. 222 (S.C. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 10 times
    Upholding an award of custody to father when mother was unwilling to encourage a relationship between the child and father

    On review, we look to the fairness of the overall apportionment. If the end result is equitable, it is irrelevant that we might have weighed specific factors differently than the trial court. Seealso Morris v. Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 367 S.E.2d 24 (1988) (even if adjustments could be made in the equitable apportionment, remand is unnecessary when the results reached by the family court are fair and equitable); Walker v. Walker, 295 S.C. 286, 368 S.E.2d 89 (Ct.App. 1988) (this Court will affirm if it can determine that the family court judge addressed the factors under § 20-7-472 with sufficiency for us to conclude the court was cognizant of the required factors for the particular case). IV. Attorney Fees