MICK-SKAGGS V. SKAGGS 766 S.E.2d 870 (2014) CASE BRIEF

MICK-SKAGGS V. SKAGGS

766 S.E.2d 870 (2014)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Mick-Skaggs (W) appealed a denial of her request for a divorce on grounds that Skaggs (H) committed adultery.

FACTS: H and W separated after 18 years of marriage. W then filed for divorce ion the grounds of H's adultery. H eventually requested a divorce based on one year's continuous separation. The issues to be decided at the final hearing were adultery and alimony. H introduced certain text messages sent from W's phone to prove that W had committed adultery. H also called William Russo, a co-worker and friend of H, to support H's allegations of W's adultery. Russo observed a male enter W's home. Russo stayed for twenty-five or thirty minutes, and the male did not leave while Russo was there. That next morning H drove by W's home at 5:30 a.m., and an unoccupied car was still parked outside W's home. H sought to introduce into evidence several photographs taken by Russo that evening. The family court admitted the photographs over W's objection. Mary Katherine Fisher, who boards horses at the parties' barn, corroborated Russo's testimony. She observed W kissing the same male outside the Cattle Company bar on the night of W's birthday. H denied cheating on W. H acknowledged he had feelings for another woman, Destiny Athey, and even stated, 'Yeah, the lady I had an affair with . . . .' W called a witness who observed H and Debbie Scott (Scott) sitting together at a horse show within the last year. Bujarski testified H was rubbing Scott's lower back underneath her shirt. A private investigator stated she observed Scott and H alone on at least five occasions at Husband's barn within the two weeks prior to trial. All of these occurrences were in the evening, with two of these meetings occurring from 11:30 p.m. until 12:59 a.m. and 12:05 a.m. until 12:40 a.m. The court granted the parties a divorce based on one year's continuous separation. It found the evidence of adultery uncorroborated on both sides. In denying W's claim to alimony, the court held, 'I don't think adultery as a bar to alimony had to be corroborated as does adultery as a ground for divorce.' W appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner