From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peay v. Peay

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jun 6, 1973
197 S.E.2d 89 (S.C. 1973)

Opinion

19632

June 6, 1973.

Messrs. McDow McDow, of Rock Hill, for Appellant, cite: As to Appellant's being entitled to temporary attorney's fees as a matter of public policy: 215 S.C. 502, 56 S.E.2d 333; 231 S.C. 134, 97 S.E.2d 505, 507; 159 S.C. 506, 157 S.E. 830, 833; 235 S.C. 246, 111 S.E.2d 265, 210; 216 S.C. 451, 58 S.E.2d 731; 221 S.C. 391, 70 S.E.2d 625; 256 S.C. 143, 182 S.E.2d 75; 252 S.C. 363, 166 S.E.2d 302; 253 S.C. 370, 170 S.E.2d 650; 227 S.C. 168, 87 S.E.2d 583, 585; 243 S.C. 383, 134 S.E.2d 222, 223; 239 S.C. 170, 122 S.E.2d 1. As to a husband's inability to pay not being a proper defense to an action for attorney's fees: 239 S.C. 170, 122 S.E.2d 1.

Samuel B. Mendenhall, Esq., of Rock Hill, for Respondent, cites: As to Appellant's not being entitled to attorney's fees pendente lite: Section 20-112, South Carolina Code of Laws (1962); 245 S.C. 542, 141 S.E.2d 648; 221 S.C. 391, 70 S.E.2d 625; 225 S.C. 211, 81 S.E.2d 344. Messrs. McDow McDow, for Appellant of Rock Hill, in Reply.


June 6, 1973.


The respondent-husband brought this action seeking a complete divorce from the appellant-wife on the grounds of alleged desertion. These parties have been before the Court recently in an action involving the custody of their only child. See opinion of this Court: Peay v. Peay, S.C. 194 S.E.2d 392 (1973).

After the summons and complaint were served, the wife petitioned the court for attorneys' fees pendente lite. Subsequently, a hearing was held and the judge issued his order denying the wife's prayer for attorneys' fees pendente lite. The wife has appealed.

The allowance of attorneys' fees or suit money pendente lite is a matter addressed largely to the discretion of the trial judge. His ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Simonds v. Simonds, 225 S.C. 211, 81 S.E.2d 344 (1954). We have reviewed the entire record in this case and conclude that there is clearly no abuse of discretion.

The order of the lower court is accordingly.

Affirmed.

MOSS, C.J., and LEWIS, BUSSEY and BRAILSFORD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Peay v. Peay

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jun 6, 1973
197 S.E.2d 89 (S.C. 1973)
Case details for

Peay v. Peay

Case Details

Full title:John W. PEAY, Respondent, v. Brenda L. PEAY, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Jun 6, 1973

Citations

197 S.E.2d 89 (S.C. 1973)
197 S.E.2d 89

Citing Cases

Armaly v. Armaly

The allowance of temporary separate maintenance and support, or temporary alimony, and attorney's fees…