## Facts

- Husband and wife married in 1957; they had two children who were emancipated by the time of the divorce proceedings.
- At filing, the wife was 57 and the husband was 58.
- The family court granted the wife a divorce on the ground of the husband’s adultery.
- The family court equitably divided marital property and ordered each party, with limited exceptions, to pay debts in his or her own name or for which that party had been the primary payor; mortgage and car debts were assigned to the party receiving the related property.
- The husband’s debts in his own name totaled about $32,000 (excluding medical expenses); the wife’s debts in her own name totaled about $2,800.
- The family court did not award alimony but reserved the issue of alimony for the wife.
- The husband appealed the alimony reservation and the debt allocation; the wife cross-appealed as to the debt division.

## Issues

1. Whether a family court may reserve alimony when the record shows no present need and no identifiable circumstances likely to create a need in the reasonably near future.
2. Whether the family court erred in allocating credit-card and other marital debts by generally assigning each party the debts in his or her own name rather than requiring the wife to pay a portion of the husband’s credit-card debts.

## Decision

- The court reversed the reservation of alimony.
- The court held the record showed neither a present need for alimony nor an identifiable set of circumstances likely to generate a near-future need.
- The court affirmed the debt allocation in part, but remanded for limited reconsideration consistent with the requirement that marital debts be addressed within the equitable-distribution framework.
- The disposition was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Alimony may be reserved only if the court determines there is an identifiable set of circumstances likely to generate a need for alimony in the reasonably near future.
- If there is no present need for alimony and no indication of illness, foreseeable change in need, or other extenuating circumstance, alimony should not be reserved.
- Marital debts incurred during the marriage must be considered as part of equitable distribution, and the same statutory factors guiding property apportionment apply to marital-debt apportionment.
- In apportioning marital debt, the court may consider who incurred the debt, for whose benefit it was incurred, and who historically paid it; titling is relevant but not dispositive.
- Appellate review of equitable-distribution and debt-allocation rulings is for abuse of discretion or lack of evidentiary support.

## Conclusion

The court rejected an open-ended reservation of alimony absent evidence of current or reasonably foreseeable need and required that marital debts, including credit-card obligations, be analyzed and allocated as part of the overall equitable-distribution scheme rather than by account title alone.


Hardy v. Hardy, 429 S.E.2d 811 (S.C. Ct. App. 1993)