McNeill v. McNeill, 343 S.E.2d 626 (S.C. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
McNeill v. McNeill, 343 S.E.2d 626 (S.C. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Lori Updegraff v. David Updegraff, No. 2024-000951 (S.C. Ct. App. July 22, 2026)
How cited ↗
Cited for
in a domestic case, the Supreme Court’s scope of review extends to the finding of facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidenceno pin page on record · 2 citing cases listed
  • Cooper v. Cooper, 346 S.E.2d 326 (S.C. Ct. App. 1986).published
    (in a domestic case, the Supreme Court’s scope of review extends to the finding of facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence)
  • Chastain v. Chastain, 346 S.E.2d 33 (S.C. Ct. App. 1986).published
    (in a domestic case, the Supreme Court’s scope of review extends to the finding of facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence)
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carolina McNEILL, Respondent
v.
Davis McNEILL, Appellant
22552.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
May 19, 1986.
Published opinion
343 S.E.2d 626
1986 S.C. LEXIS 353
John K. Koon, Columbia, and Frederick I. Hall, III, Lexington, for appellant., Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Conway, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam:

This is an appeal from a final order of the Family Court which found the prior separation agreement inequitable, unfair, and refused to enforce it, granted the parties a divorce, made an equitable division of the property, and awarded alimony. We affirm as modified.

A divorce action being a matter in equity heard by the trial judge alone, this Court’s scope of review extends to the finding of facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 283 S. C. 87,[*492] 320 S. E. (2d) 706 (1984); Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S. C. 81, 221 S. E. (2d) 773 (1976).

After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that the appropriate amount of alimony is one hundred fifty ($150.00) dollars per month. We modify the Family Court order by reducing the alimony from two hundred fifty ($250.00) dollars per month to one hundred fifty ($150.00) dollars per month.

The remaining exceptions are without merit and the order of the trial court is affirmed as modified pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23.

Affirmed as modified.