Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 03-16-2022
Case Style:
Case Number: 2022-YO-112
Judge: Per Curiam
Court: Family Court, Pickens County, South Carolina
Plaintiff's Attorney: Oscar Bannister
Defendant's Attorney: Robert Dover
Description: Pickens, South Carolina family law lawyer represented Petitioner seeking a divorce from Respondent.
The parties attended high school together in Greenville and began dating when Wife was sixteen years old and Husband was seventeen. By the time Husband was a high school senior, the couple dated exclusively. Following graduation, Husband attended Mars Hill College in North Carolina.
Although the parties were first engaged to be married when Wife was a senior in high school, she broke the engagement because despite her desire to attend college, Husband "couldn't agree" that college was something Wife "needed to do." Wife completed a two-year degree at Montreat-Anderson Junior College and then took a job as an executive secretary to the director of engineering at Dan River Woodside.
The parties subsequently reengaged and were married on December 28, 1968. Wife gave up her position at Dan River Woodside, moved to Mars Hill, and took a job at a law firm in Asheville. Wife testified she was solely responsible for the parties' financial support at that time, including paying for Husband's last three semesters of college. While Husband acknowledged Wife paid for some of his college tuition, he testified only one semester remained after they married.
Husband graduated, and the parties moved back to Greenville, where they resided until 1990. Wife returned to her job and "progressed in her field" before eventually obtaining a commercial real estate license. She worked as a licensed realtor until the parties' only child (Daughter) was born in 1977. Thereafter, Wife had several temporary or contract job assignments with U.S. Shelter Corporation, Bowater, and Fluor Daniel. When Daughter was in eleventh grade, Wife went to real estate school to obtain her residential real estate license and then worked primarily with residential listings.
Husband began his career at South Carolina National Bank, which hired him to enter the management training program. He subsequently took a job at Southern Bank & Trust, where he "rose to the level of senior lender in Greenville and . . . of course vice president and main office manager." Husband then worked at American Federal, where he helped open a commercial bank function within the savings and loan. Husband was later presented with the opportunity to help start Peoples National Bank (PNB) and other companies in Easley. Although Wife did not want to move to Easley, she ultimately acquiesced. Husband became president of PNB and subsequently the chief financial officer of the holding company for other banks formed by PNB. Husband retired in 2011.
Ridgeway v. Ridgeway (S.C. App. 2022)
Following the parties' move to Easley-a difficult transition for both Wife and Daughter-Wife continued in her role as a homemaker and participated in activities that furthered Husband's career. Husband testified he would have been just as successful in life without Wife's efforts stating, "she was a great help along the way but so are other women, you know . . . it's not a hard thing to be a bank president's wife." Before that time, Wife worked with Husband to do what was necessary to financially support the family; however, after Daughter was born, Wife assumed a mostly one-sided responsibility for Daughter's care and the maintenance of the parties' home and property while Husband controlled the family's financial decisions and social calendar.
Husband and Wife agreed that Wife provided the majority of the indirect contributions in the home. Wife testified she was responsible for cleaning their home, washing their clothing, and described herself as the "chief cook and bottle washer." She volunteered at Daughter's school and participated in various activities benefitting Daughter. While the parties hired individuals to assist Wife with certain aspects of the yard, she was the primary landscaper. Wife did not have any help inside the home until Daughter was in high school. However, the parties have had someone to clean bimonthly since then "to do all the heavy lifting."
In January 2015, Wife met a man at a shag club in North Myrtle Beach. According to Wife, the two conversed that evening but did not talk again for nine months. In September 2015, he emailed Wife suggesting they meet and share a dance, to which Wife agreed. Thereafter, they talked on the phone and exchanged many texts and emails. However, Wife testified the pair did not see each other again until November 2016, when they went to lunch with two other couples.
Wife admitted she made the "final decision" to separate from Husband in the early part of 2017, but testified she did not participate in any extramarital misconduct until after she filed a motion for temporary relief and a summons and complaint in the family court on February 10, 2017. After filing pleadings asking for, among other things, temporary support and maintenance, the division of marital assets, and alimony, Wife withdrew over $310, 000 from the parties' joint bank accounts, left the marital home, and moved to the parties' beach house. She did not tell Husband or Daughter she was leaving or why.
On March 3, 2017, Husband hired a private investigator, who subsequently observed Wife and the man "meet on more the one occasion, share breakfast, lunch and dinner, travel together to a planned party, hold hands, kiss and share time
3
together in a hotel room . . . on two occasions." When confronted with this information, Wife withdrew her claim for alimony. Wife stipulated to post-separation adultery. At trial, Wife admitted to an emotional affair but denied any physical involvement outside the marriage prior to February 10, 2017. Likewise, Husband testified he had no evidence that Wife had committed adultery as of the time of the separation or filing of this action.
On April 17, 2017, Husband filed an answer, counterclaim, and return to the motion for temporary relief, noting Wife's adultery, denying she was entitled to temporary support or alimony, and admitting she was entitled to an equitable division of the marital assets.
The parties subsequently entered a consent order regarding certain issues raised in the motion for temporary relief and went to trial on the remaining matters on June 11, 2018. The family court granted Husband a divorce on the ground of adultery by decree dated August 1, 2018. The family court calculated an equitable apportionment split of 50.5% to Husband and 49.5% to Wife, with assets of $1, 646, 810 awarded to Husband and $1, 612, 864 awarded to Wife.
Ridgeway v. Ridgeway (S.C. App. 2022)
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: