## Facts

- Nathaniel P. Splawn (Husband) and Louvenia Splawn (Wife) participated in a marriage ceremony in April 1961 and lived together as spouses for decades.
- Unknown to both parties at the time, Husband had previously married in 1955 and had never obtained a divorce from his first wife, making the later marriage void as a bigamous marriage.
- The parties separated in 1990. Wife filed an action in family court seeking a divorce on the ground of physical cruelty.
- In that first proceeding, the family court denied Wife’s request for divorce for failure of proof, but it entered an order equitably dividing the parties’ property, awarding 60% to Wife and 40% to Husband.
- Later, Husband filed a separate action seeking a divorce on the ground of one year’s continuous separation and asked the family court to enforce the prior equitable-distribution order.
- Around that time, Wife discovered that Husband’s first marriage had never been dissolved. Wife asserted that the parties’ marriage was void, that Husband was not entitled to a divorce, and that the family court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to equitably distribute property connected to a void marriage.
- The family court found the marriage was “not legal,” but still required Wife to comply with the earlier equitable-distribution order.
- Wife appealed to the Supreme Court of South Carolina, challenging the family court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to equitably distribute property of a bigamous marriage.

## Issues

1. Whether the South Carolina family court has subject-matter jurisdiction to equitably distribute property when the parties’ marriage is void ab initio because it is bigamous.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed.
- The family court had subject-matter jurisdiction to equitably distribute the parties’ property even though the marriage was void ab initio due to bigamy.
- The family court therefore acted within its authority when it enforced the earlier equitable-distribution order.

## Legal Principles

- Family-court jurisdiction extends to matters incident to domestic actions, including property disputes that arise in proceedings involving marriages that are void ab initio.
- Under prior South Carolina precedent (including *White v. White*), the family court has jurisdiction to decide “all matters” in annulment actions, and a bigamous marriage and a marriage annulled for an impediment are both void ab initio.
- Because there is no legal distinction, for jurisdiction purposes, between a void marriage addressed through annulment and a void marriage due to bigamy, the family court’s authority to address property division is not defeated by the marriage’s invalidity.
- Public-policy objections to allowing equitable distribution in a bigamy setting do not remove jurisdiction, in part because South Carolina’s equitable distribution statute allows the family court to consider misconduct, fault, and other relevant factors when dividing property.

## Conclusion

In *Splawn v. Splawn*, the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the family court has subject-matter jurisdiction to equitably distribute property between parties to a bigamous marriage that is void ab initio, and it affirmed the order enforcing the prior 60/40 equitable-distribution award.


Splawn v. Splawn, 429 S.E.2d 805 (1993)