Edm v. Tam

Citations: 415 S.E.2d 812; 307 S.C. 471; 1992 S.C. LEXIS 71Docket: 23603

Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina; March 15, 1992; South Carolina; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of E.D.M. Respondent v. T.A.M. Appellant, the South Carolina Supreme Court addressed an appeal concerning a denial of annulment and an award of alimony and attorney's fees. The Husband appealed the family court's decision that denied his request for annulment based on allegations of fraud related to the Wife's undisclosed psychological issues and sexual incapacity, asserting that the marriage was never consummated, as they had only engaged in oral sex. The family court initially awarded the Wife $500 per month in alimony, divided marital property 80% to the Husband and 20% to the Wife, and granted her $2,300 in attorney's fees, later amending the alimony to $300 per month.

The Court identified three primary issues: (1) whether the Husband was entitled to annulment due to fraud and lack of cohabitation, (2) the propriety of the alimony award to the Wife, and (3) the appropriateness of the attorney's fees awarded to the Wife. The Court noted its authority to correct legal errors and evaluate facts based on the preponderance of evidence.

The Husband's claim of annulment was based on the assertion that he was misled about the Wife's sexual capacity, which he argued was essential to the marriage. However, the Court clarified that mere failure to disclose sexual dysfunction does not automatically constitute fraud sufficient for annulment, especially when the parties had agreed to refrain from premarital sexual relations. The Court ultimately concluded that the evidence did not support the Husband's claim that the Wife concealed her incapacity, leading to the affirmation of the family court's decision in part and its reversal in part regarding the annulment issue.

Wife disclosed her emotional issues to Husband prior to their marriage, including difficulties with sexual intercourse, which Husband acknowledged. However, Wife was not diagnosed with psychological problems until 1987, two years after their marriage, and Husband provided no evidence that she was aware of the extent of her sexual issues beforehand. The burden of proof lies with the party challenging the marriage's validity, and Husband failed to demonstrate fraudulent inducement for annulment. Additionally, the marriage was consummated through cohabitation, which precludes annulment under South Carolina law, even if fraud were proven. Cohabitation was defined as living together, and the evidence indicated that the couple lived intimately, sharing a bed and engaging in sexual activity.

Regarding alimony, the court considered multiple factors such as financial condition, age, health, earning capacities, contributions to joint wealth, and the duration of the marriage. The couple separated after four and a half years. Husband earned $48,000 as an engineer, while Wife earned $20,000 in an administrative role. Wife's psychological issues did not impair her work capacity. Husband contributed significantly more financially to the marriage, totaling $187,497, while Wife contributed only $11,300. At separation, Wife had savings of $7,000 and Husband was ordered to pay her $5,666 for her equity in their home. Ultimately, the court concluded that Wife was not entitled to alimony due to her minimal contributions and ability to support herself. Her psychiatric treatment was expected to continue for two years post-separation, but her medical expenses were likely to decrease.

Wife has health insurance that contributes a specific annual amount for psychiatric treatment, and the $506 is not a fixed monthly payment. Husband challenges the award of attorney's fees to Wife. The determination of such fees requires consideration of: (1) the party's ability to pay their own attorney's fees, (2) the beneficial results achieved by the attorney, (3) the financial situations of both parties, and (4) the impact of the fees on each party's standard of living, as established in Glasscock v. Glasscock. Based on these factors, it is concluded that Wife is not entitled to attorney's fees given the minimal amount at stake and her capacity to cover costs from her income and savings. Additionally, since the alimony award was reversed, the outcomes obtained by Wife's attorney were deemed non-beneficial. The family court's denial of an annulment is upheld, while the awards for alimony and attorney's fees are reversed. Notes clarify that cohabitation does not legitimize a marriage for a legally incompetent individual, the action was filed prior to the effective date of relevant alimony statutes, and Husband's claim for reimbursement related to a temporary order is not under consideration as he did not appeal that order.