Cox v. Cox

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Cox v. Cox

373 S.E.2d 694, 296 S.C. 414, 1988 S.C. App. LEXIS 146

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina

DecidedOctober 24, 1988

Docket1223

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 373 S.E.2d 694 (Cox v. Cox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cox v. Cox, 373 S.E.2d 694, 296 S.C. 414, 1988 S.C. App. LEXIS 146 (S.C. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is a divorce case. James Harold Cox (the husband) appeals the trial judge’s failure to find Mary Margaret Landers Cox (the wife) guilty of adultery and consequent failure to bar her from alimony.

There is conflicting testimony as to whether the wife committed adultery. The wife denied the conduct alleged by other witnesses, and the trial court found the evidence of adultery insufficient. Although we have jurisdiction in divorce cases to find facts based on our own view of the evidence, we are not required to disregard the findings of the trial judge who saw and heard the witnesses and was in a better position than we are to evaluate their testimony. Cartee v. Cartee, 295 S. C. 103, 366 S. E. (2d) 269 (Ct. App. 1988).

With this principle in mind, however, we have reviewed carefully the record before us and concur with the findings of the trial judge.

For this reason, the appealed order is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

This is a divorce case. James Harold Cox (the husband) appeals the trial judge’s failure to find Mary Margaret Landers Cox (the wife) guilty of adultery and consequent failure to bar her from alimony.

There is conflicting testimony as to whether the wife committed adultery. The wife denied the conduct alleged by other witnesses, and the trial court found the evidence of adultery insufficient. Although we have jurisdiction in divorce cases to find facts based on our own view of the evidence, we are not required to disregard the findings of the trial judge who saw and heard the witnesses and was in a better position than we are to evaluate their testimony. Cartee v. Cartee, 295 S. C. 103, 366 S. E. (2d) 269 (Ct. App. 1988).

With this principle in mind, however, we have reviewed carefully the record before us and concur with the findings of the trial judge.

For this reason, the appealed order is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

373 S.E.2d 694, 296 S.C. 414, 1988 S.C. App. LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-cox-scctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack