Court Opinion

ID: 9854461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:07:55.156219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:05.462506
License: Public Domain

Goolsby, Judge
(concurring and dissenting):
I concur in the reversal of the equitable division award to the wife of $20,000 because the trial judge improperly regarded the husband’s medical degree as a marital asset subject to division. Helm v. Helm, 289 S. C. 169, 345 S. E. (2d) 720 (1986).
I also concur in the reversal, but not the remand, of the award of attorney fees and costs, considering the beneficial results obtained by the wife and the beneficial results obtained by the husband. It was a wash.
Because the record does not show the existence of special circumstances warranting a lump sum award of alimony but does show the marriage was of a short duration and the wife made no significant contribution to the husband’s pursuit of a medical education, I would affirm the denial of lump sum alimony to the wife and would not remand the issue. To this extent, then, I dissent.
I would also affirm the denial of the wife’s request for an additional equitable division award. The marriage produced no appreciable amount of marital property and the trial judge equitably divided what they did acquire. Their direct contributions to the acquisition of marital property were approximately equal, with the husband contributing slightly more.
I do not think it necessary to consider the question raised by the husband concerning the testimony of the wife’s expert witness.