Background
Lori and David Updegraff resolved some issues in their divorce but tried disputes involving alimony and equitable distribution. The family court awarded Wife permanent periodic alimony, addressed the marital home, pastureland, rental property, personal property, and retirement accounts, and accepted stipulated values for much of the estate.
Husband appealed several portions of the decree. He emphasized his plan to retire at sixty-five, challenged the treatment and implementation of property provisions, and asked the Court of Appeals to revisit the equal division to which the parties had agreed.
The Court’s Holding
Conducting the de novo review used in family-court appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the award of permanent periodic alimony. A future intention to retire did not require the family court to build a speculative reduction into the original award. If retirement later produces a substantial change in circumstances, South Carolina law provides a modification process based on the facts then existing.
The court also rejected Husband’s principal property challenges but modified the decree to clarify implementation of the retirement-account division. The added language required the parties to cooperate and sign documentation necessary to accomplish the division. Husband’s broader equitable-distribution argument was abandoned because it was conclusory and unsupported by authority; in any event, the rejection of his other claimed errors left no basis to reconstruct the agreed equal division.
Key Takeaways
- A planned retirement generally does not justify prospectively reducing permanent periodic alimony in the initial decree.
- The affected spouse may seek modification when retirement actually creates a substantial change in circumstances.
- Divorce decrees should expressly require cooperation with qualified orders and other documents needed to divide retirement assets.
Why It Matters
South Carolina family-law practitioners should separate present financial evidence from anticipated life changes. A retirement plan can be relevant context, but courts need not guess years in advance about income, health, benefits, or the reasonableness of the retirement decision. A later modification action provides a record grounded in actual circumstances.
The opinion also underscores the importance of implementation language. Even when the percentages are settled, retirement assets do not divide themselves. Proposed orders should assign responsibility for preparing and signing documents, address plan requirements, and reduce the chance that an otherwise final equitable-distribution award produces another round of litigation.