Donald v. Donald ( 2008 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Bryson Donald, Jr., Respondent,

v.

Betty Donald, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Billy A. Tunstall, Jr., Family Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-337
Submitted June 1, 2008 – Filed July 7, 2008  

---

AFFIRMED

---

J. Edwin McDonnell, of Spartanburg, for Appellant.

J. Falkner  Wilkes, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Betty Donald appeals the family court’s termination of Bryson Donald, Jr.’s alimony obligation.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-150 (Supp. 2007) (stating alimony will cease upon continued cohabitation, which is defined as supported spouse residing with another person in a romantic relationship for a period of ninety or more consecutive days); Love v. Love, 367 S.C. 493, 497-98, 626 S.E.2d 56, 59 (Ct. App. 2006) (“[C]ourts will treat the relationship between a supported spouse and a third party as ‘tantamount to marriage’ and terminate alimony when the two cohabitate for an extended period of time and some degree of economic reliance between them is established.”); Vance v. Vance, 287 S.C. 615, 618, 340 S.E.2d 554, 555 (Ct. App. 1986) (finding living with another, whether it is with a live-in lover, a relative, or a platonic housemate, changes one’s circumstances and alters his or her required financial support).

Accordingly, the family court’s order is

AFFIRMED.[1]

HEARN, C.J., and SHORT, J., and KONDUROS, J., concur.

---

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.