TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Spires v. Spires

Charles Quitman SPIRES, Respondent v. Joyce Ann Player SPIRES, Appellant

Spires v. Spires, 373 S.E.2d 698 (S.C. Ct. App. 1988)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 31, 1988
Docket
No. 1227
Judges
Shaw, Bell, Cureton
Citations
373 S.E.2d 698296 S.C. 4221988 S.C. App. LEXIS 144

Opinion — Shaw

Shaw, Judge:

This is an appeal from a family court order which ruled recrimination is not a defense to the statutory bar to alimony. We affirm.

This issue has not been heretofore decided in South Carolina.

In 1987 Mr. Spires commenced an action for divorce on the ground of adultery. Also, he sought to terminate alimony awarded to Mrs. Spires by an earlier order of the family court. Mrs. Spires answered and denied the material allegations and she also counterclaimed for a divorce on the ground of Mr. Spires’ alleged adultery or in the alternative for a divorce on the ground of one year’s separation. She also pled recrimination as a defense to Mr.

*423 Spires’ cause of action requesting a divorce and pled recrimination as a defense to his cause of action asking that alimony be barred.

The family court held both parties had committed adultery but granted a divorce to the parties on the ground of one year’s separation. The order held recrimination is not a proper defense to the statutory bar to alimony and terminated the alimony awarded from the previous order.

Section 20-3-130, 1976 Code of Laws of South Carolina, provides in pertinent part:

.... No alimony shall be granted an adulterous spouse---- Where a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is not room for construction, and, the terms of the statute must be given their literal meaning.

Duke Power Co. v. S. C. Tax Commission, 292 S. C. 64, 354 S. E. (2d) 902 (1987).

Recrimination does not constitute an exception to this statute. We hold the violation of the law by one’s spouse does not justify nor give license to the other to violate the same law without penalty.

Affirmed.

Bell and Cureton, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1990: 11991: 119902026peak 1990 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rgm v. Dem410 S.E.2d 564 (S.C. 1991)
  2. Poinsett Construction Co. v. Fischer391 S.E.2d 875 (S.C. Ct. App. 1990)

Most recent

  1. Rgm v. Dem410 S.E.2d 564 (S.C. 1991)
  2. Poinsett Construction Co. v. Fischer391 S.E.2d 875 (S.C. Ct. App. 1990)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Duke Power Co. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 354 S.E.2d 902 (S.C. 1987) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list