You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

C.A.H. v. L.H.

Citations: 315 S.C. 389; 434 S.E.2d 268; 1993 S.C. LEXIS 151Docket: 23898

Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina; July 12, 1993; South Carolina; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves a divorce proceeding where the family court granted the Wife alimony and equitably divided marital property following allegations of sexual abuse by the Husband against the Wife's daughters. The Husband appealed the family court's decision, challenging the award of 'relocation alimony' of $150 per month for one year, arguing it was inappropriate under S.C. Code Ann. 20-3-130. The appellate court upheld the alimony award, citing alternative provisions for spousal support. Additionally, the Husband's motions to amend the judgment or for a new trial were denied, as the appellate court found no evidence of judicial prejudice or procedural errors. The court dismissed the Husband's claim of prejudicial ex parte communication and determined that sufficient factual findings supported the family court's decree. The appellate court concluded that the Husband's right to present evidence was not violated, as he failed to request a proffer. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the family court's rulings, maintaining the initial decisions regarding alimony and the division of property.

Legal Issues Addressed

Alimony under S.C. Code Ann. 20-3-130

Application: The family court's award of rehabilitative alimony to the Wife was affirmed despite the Husband's challenge under S.C. Code Ann. 20-3-130, as the appellate court found sufficient grounds for the award under a different provision.

Reasoning: Husband argued this award was inappropriate under S.C. Code Ann. 20-3-130, but the appellate court found sufficient grounds for the alimony under a different provision allowing for spousal support based on the court's discretion.

Judicial Prejudice and Ex Parte Communication

Application: Husband's claims of judicial prejudice due to alleged ex parte communication were dismissed by the appellate court, as no evidence was found to support these claims.

Reasoning: He claimed prejudicial ex parte communication between the judge and an assistant solicitor, but the judge did not recall the conversation's content. The court found no evidence supporting claims of judicial prejudice.

Right to Present Evidence

Application: The Husband's claim that he was denied the opportunity to present evidence was rejected, as he did not request a proffer, and the appellate court found sufficient evidence in the record.

Reasoning: Husband argued... that he was denied the opportunity to present evidence. The appellate court noted that he did not request a proffer and found ample evidence in the record supporting the family court's findings.

Sufficiency of Factual Findings in Divorce Decrees

Application: The appellate court held that the family court's decree contained sufficient factual findings, rejecting the Husband's argument to the contrary.

Reasoning: Additionally, Husband argued that the final decree lacked factual findings... The appellate court... found ample evidence in the record supporting the family court's findings.