Opinion ID: 2830720
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exception to Section 20-3-130(B)

Text: The family court may also find that a continued cohabitation exists if there is evidence that the supported spouse resides with another person in a romantic relationship for periods of less than ninety days and the two periodically separate in order to circumvent the ninety-day requirement. S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3- 130(B).4 The family court found that Hamby's absences from Pedery's house were being used deliberately and intentionally because there was never any removal of her property to the other location and she returned on a regular basis . . . . Similarly, the family court stated that any absence[] from [Pedery's house] is in the line of her job and do[es] not constitute a stop in her residence and that the use of this at trial is clearly to circumvent the statute. In contrast, we find that McKinney presented no evidence that Pedery and Hamby periodically stayed apart from each other before the litigation began5 to circumvent the ninety-day requirement of section 20-3-130(B). According to Pedery's testimony, Hamby worked as a nanny for her grandchildren and lived with her son in Duncan prior to her relationship with Pedery,6 indicating that Hamby's travel to Duncan was unrelated to the ninety-day requirement of section 20-3- 130(B). Therefore, we find that Pedery and Hamby's weekly separation as a result of her work in Duncan did not amount to a separation intended to circumvent the ninety-day requirement of section 20-3-130(B). 4 Because the court of appeals found that McKinney established that Hamby and Pedery continuously cohabitated for longer than ninety days, it did not reach this issue. See McKinney, 406 S.C. at 9, 749 S.E.2d at 123. 5 Pedery acknowledged that after the litigation began, Hamby began staying at his house only on weekend nights. 6 While the family court found that Pedery's testimony was not wholly credible, the family court based that finding on the fact that he did not bring [Hamby] to the hearing to substantiate any of the allegations—reasoning which we find unpersuasive. Nevertheless, there was no testimony to refute Pedery's testimony on this point, and Greaves actually observed Hamby caring for children while she was in Duncan.