Opinion ID: 1254790
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: equitable distribution of real property

Text: Wife argues the marital home was a gift to her and, therefore, not subject to equitable distribution under the law existing when this action was commenced. She contends further the Order of the lower court can be affirmed only through retrospective application by this Court of holdings in Parrott v. Parrott , 278 S.C. 60, 292 S.E. (2d) 182 (1982), and Burgess v. Burgess , 277 S.C. 283, 286 S.E. (2d) 142 (1982), both decided after the trial of this case. We disagree. The Order of the Trial Judge was not based upon the question decided in the later case of Parrott, supra , hence there is no issue of its retrospective application by this Court. In Burgess, supra , interspousal gifts were for the first time held to be subject to equitable distribution. Burgess, supra , would have application here only if the real estate were held to be a gift. However, the Trial Judge, in a finding of fact supported fully by the record, concluded that the real estate was not a gift and, therefore, was to be treated as marital property. This finding having been correctly decided adversely to Wife, it is not necessary to consider the issue of retrospective application of Burgess, supra . Equitable distribution was first recognized by this Court in Wilson v. Wilson , 270 S.C. 216, 241 S.E. (2d) 566 (1978), which held that where the wife has made material contributions to the husband's acquisition of property during the marriage, she acquires a special equity in that property, though titled only in her husband's name. Two years later, in Glass v. Glass , 276 S.C. 625, 281 S.E. (2d) 221 (1981), we made it clear that the principle applies with equal force to the husband. The Trial Judge properly applied the law of Wilson, supra , and Glass, supra , in finding the marital home subject to equitable distribution. Wife argues alternatively that, even if this Court should find the marital home subject to equitable distribution, Husband should not have been awarded a 50% interest. We disagree. She further contends the $6,000.00 loan should have been subtracted from the $65,000.00 proceeds prior to division. We agree. When making an equitable distribution, the Trial Court must consider the relative incomes of the parties, their material contributions and debts, and the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Parrott, supra ; Bugg v. Bugg , 277 S.C. 270, 286 S.E. (2d) 135 (1982); Baker v. Baker, supra ; Simmons v. Simmons , 275 S.C. 41, 267 S.E. (2d) 427 (1980); Wilson, supra . Although both parties were employed during most of the marriage, Husband contributed over $130,831.97, which included his own $59,000.00 trust, and Wife, $28,194.52. Furthermore, Husband's $35,480.54 equity in the home owned by him upon marriage was used to purchase the other marital homes. At the time of trial, Wife was not employed but had accepted a position and planned to begin work soon at a $14,000.00 salary. She had no debts, while Husband was repaying a loan of over $16,000.00. We find it was fair and equitable to award Respondent 50% of the proceeds of the marital home sale. We hold, though, that the $6,000.00 loan paid by Wife should have been deducted from the $65,000.00 proceeds prior to the 50%-50% division. Wife testified the loan was necessary to provide for the children. Moreover, Husband himself prepared the closing documents for sale of the home and did not question Wife's disposition of the proceeds until divorce. We find Husband entitled to one-half of the $58,000.00 [1] remaining after the division, and affirm that portion of the Order placing Husband's 50% portion in an interest-bearing trust account for child support.