THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Diane Shannon, Respondent,

v.

George Shannon, Appellant.

George L. Shannon, Appellant,

v.

Teresa Diane Shannon, Respondent.

Appeal From Kershaw County
Gerald C. Smoak, Jr., Family Court Judge

Opinion No. 3618
Heard February 13, 2003 – Filed March 17, 2003

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

James W. Corley, of Columbia; for Appellant.

Carlos W. Gibbons, Jr., of Columbia; for Respondent.

STILWELL, J.:  In this post-divorce domestic action, George Shannon (Husband) appeals an order of the family court holding him in contempt and denying his plea for termination or modification of his alimony obligation to Diane Shannon (Wife).  We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

BACKGROUND

The parties were divorced by order of the family court in 1997.  The divorce decree provides, inter alia, that Husband is to pay Wife $400 per month in periodic alimony with all payments to be made through the court. 

On February 16, 1999, Wife was reported as a missing person.  Her whereabouts have not been known since that date.  After her disappearance, a conservatorship was established on Wife’s behalf.

Husband instituted this action in April of 2001 seeking termination of his alimony obligation to Wife.  Alternatively, Husband sought modification of his alimony obligation, retroactive to the date Wife was reported missing.  First Union Bank, in its capacity as Wife’s court-appointed conservator, arranged for Wife to have legal representation.  Wife’s answer to the complaint denied Husband’s entitlement to the relief sought, and contained a counterclaim seeking an award of attorney fees and costs.  Additionally, because Husband was in arrears on his alimony payments, the family court issued a rule to show cause why Husband should not be held in contempt for failure to pay alimony. [1]

After a hearing on both actions, the court denied Husband’s plea for relief from his alimony support obligation and held him in contempt for failure to pay alimony.  The court determined his arrearage was $7,763 as of the date of the order.  This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In appeals from the family court, this court may find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence.  Rutherford v. Rutherford, 307 S.C. 199, 204, 414 S.E.2d 157, 160 (1992); Owens v. Owens, 320 S.C. 543, 546, 466 S.E.2d 373, 375 (Ct. App. 1996). 

Discussion

Husband asserts the family court erred in failing to grant him relief from his alimony obligation in light of Wife’s continued status as a missing person.  We agree.