Opinion ID: 1203578
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: redetermination of equitable ownership

Text: In the event this Court determined the property at issue was marital property. Husband requested this Court remand the case to the Family Court for a redetermination of equitable ownership in the property at issue. The Family Court's Order reflects the equitable distribution of the marital property was based upon the factors as set out in Shaluly v. Shaluly , 284 S.C. 71, 325 S.E. (2d) 66 (1985) [2] and is supported by the record. As none of these factors in this instance is affected by the inclusion of the property increasing the size of the marital estate, a remand for a redetermination of equitable ownership is unnecessary. Cf. Casey v. Casey , 293 S.C. 503, 362 S.E. (2d) 6 (1987). The remand ordered by the Court of Appeals to determine whether an in-kind distribution of the additional marital property should be made is unnecessary. The parties have already sold the property and are holding the funds in escrow pending resolution of this appeal. These funds should be distributed to the parties in accordance with the percentage of ownership of the marital property established by the Family Court below. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed as modified. GREGORY, C.J., and HARWELL, CHANDLER and FINNEY, JJ., concur.