Nanney v. Nanney

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Nanney v. Nanney

339 S.E.2d 864, 287 S.C. 487, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 267

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedFebruary 3, 1986

Docket22458

StatusPublished

This text of 339 S.E.2d 864 (Nanney v. Nanney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nanney v. Nanney, 339 S.E.2d 864, 287 S.C. 487, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 267 (S.C. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In this divorce action, the Family Court Judge had the chore of equitably dividing a quarter of a million dollars worth of property between the husband and the wife. The husband has appealed alleging error on the part of the judge in granting to the wife a fifty per cent interest.

The judge is allowed a wide discretion; upon a review of the record, we find no abuse. Levy v. Levy, 277 S. C. 576, 291 S. E. (2d) 201 (1982). We are cognizant of the fact that inadvertent calculations were made relative to office furniture and the net value of the residence. While this is true technically, the error compared to the total values is miniscule and does not warrant appellate reversal. In an equity proceeding, this Court may find facts in keeping with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S. C. 81, 221 S. E. (2d) 773 (1976). The overall result is just as equitable as the minor changes which the husband would bring about.

[489]*489All exceptions have been considered. We affirm the order of the lower court under our Rule 23.

Affirmed.

Harwell, A.J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam:

In this divorce action, the Family Court Judge had the chore of equitably dividing a quarter of a million dollars worth of property between the husband and the wife. The husband has appealed alleging error on the part of the judge in granting to the wife a fifty per cent interest.

The judge is allowed a wide discretion; upon a review of the record, we find no abuse. Levy v. Levy, 277 S. C. 576, 291 S. E. (2d) 201 (1982). We are cognizant of the fact that inadvertent calculations were made relative to office furniture and the net value of the residence. While this is true technically, the error compared to the total values is miniscule and does not warrant appellate reversal. In an equity proceeding, this Court may find facts in keeping with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S. C. 81, 221 S. E. (2d) 773 (1976). The overall result is just as equitable as the minor changes which the husband would bring about.

[489]*489All exceptions have been considered. We affirm the order of the lower court under our Rule 23.

Affirmed.

Harwell, A.J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 S.E.2d 864, 287 S.C. 487, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nanney-v-nanney-sc-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack