Understanding when rehabilitative alimony is appropriate under South Carolina law

The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently issued an important decision in Yu v. Jonas (Opinion No. 6108, filed March 26, 2025) that reinforces the state’s strong preference for permanent periodic alimony over rehabilitative alimony. This case provides valuable guidance for family law practitioners and divorcing spouses about the high evidentiary burden required to support an award of rehabilitative alimony.

Case Background
Arpad Jonas and Saifei Yu met online while Jonas lived in South Carolina and Yu resided in China. After Jonas invited Yu to the United States, they married and Yu quickly became pregnant. Throughout the marriage, Jonas’s earnings as an IT director for a school district were the family’s sole source of support. The marriage was complicated by immigration issues that required Yu to return to China with the parties’ child for several years before she could legally re-enter the United States.

At the time of trial, Yu was employed as a teacher’s aide at their son’s school, earning approximately $16,000 annually—far below the standard of living the couple enjoyed during the marriage. Jonas appealed the family court’s award of permanent periodic alimony, arguing that Yu should instead receive rehabilitative alimony.

The Legal Framework
Under South Carolina Code Section 20-3-130(B)(3), rehabilitative alimony is designed to “provide for the rehabilitation of the supported spouse” with “modifiable ending dates coinciding with events considered appropriate by the court such as the completion of job training or education.”

However, South Carolina appellate courts have consistently held that permanent periodic alimony is favored under state law. As the Court of Appeals explained in Jenkins v. Jenkins, 345 S.C. 88, 95 (Ct. App. 2001), rehabilitative alimony is reserved for “exceptional circumstances.”

The High Bar for Rehabilitative Alimony
To justify an award of rehabilitative alimony, the record must demonstrate that:

1. The recipient will be self-sufficient at the end of the ordered payments, AND
2. The recipient will be able to maintain the same standard of living enjoyed during the marriage

The court’s hesitance stems from the recognition that rehabilitative alimony “seldom suffices to maintain the level of support the dependent spouse enjoyed as an incident to the marriage.” Johnson v. Johnson, 296 S.C. 289, 301 (Ct. App. 1988).

Why Jonas’s Appeal Failed
Jonas made several reasonable arguments: the marriage was relatively brief, Yu was educated (holding both high school and college degrees from China), she was able-bodied and capable of working, and she had demonstrated work capacity through her employment history.
However, the Court of Appeals found the evidentiary record insufficient to support rehabilitative alimony. The court noted there was:

No clear evidence of what specific training Yu would need
No testimony about the cost of such training
No evidence of how long training would take
No expert testimony about Yu’s earning capacity after training
No identification of what specific job Yu could reasonably obtain

While Yu testified she was transferring her Chinese degree to the United States and had inquired about becoming a teacher, she indicated her language skills needed improvement and that she would need “an additional degree or some sort of equivalent.” Even with these steps, Yu estimated it would take six months to a year to secure a teaching position, and becoming a paraprofessional would not significantly increase her current $16,000 annual income.

Procedural Issues
The court also noted that Jonas did not raise the issue of rehabilitative alimony until his motion to reconsider, which “strongly suggests his argument is not even preserved” under South Carolina law. At trial, Jonas had simply argued that alimony should last approximately two years based on his research showing alimony was “normally” for roughly half the length of the marriage.

The Dissenting Opinion
Judge Thomas authored a partial dissent, arguing that the case presented exactly the circumstances the legislature envisioned for rehabilitative alimony:

The marriage was short
Yu is young, healthy, and educated
Yu demonstrated desire to improve her English skills and job prospects
Evidence suggested Yu could become self-sufficient within “relatively few years”

Judge Thomas also noted that many cases establishing the preference for permanent periodic alimony “were decided before the comprehensive amendments to section 20-3-130 in 1990,” questioning whether this preference truly reflects current statutory intent.

Practical Implications for Family Law Practitioners
This case offers several important lessons for South Carolina family law attorneys:

1. Build a Detailed Record
If seeking rehabilitative alimony, counsel must present comprehensive evidence including:

Specific rehabilitation or training plans
Costs and duration of proposed training
Expert testimony on job market prospects
Projected earnings after rehabilitation
Timeline for achieving self-sufficiency at the marital standard of living

2. Raise All Arguments at Trial
Don’t wait until a motion to reconsider to raise alternative forms of alimony. Under Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455 (Ct. App. 1990), parties cannot use post-trial motions to raise issues that could have been addressed before judgment.

3. Understand the Default Position
Absent exceptional circumstances and substantial proof, South Carolina family courts will default to permanent periodic alimony. The burden is on the party seeking rehabilitative alimony to overcome this preference with clear and convincing evidence.

4. Consider Vocational Expert Testimony
In cases involving a supported spouse with foreign credentials, limited English proficiency, or unclear job prospects, vocational expert testimony may be essential to establish:

Transferability of foreign education/credentials
Realistic earning capacity
Specific steps needed for rehabilitation
Timeframe for achieving self-sufficiency

5. Address Language and Cultural Barriers
When a supported spouse faces language barriers or is navigating credential transfer from another country, these factors strengthen the case for permanent periodic alimony. Courts recognize these obstacles make achieving the marital standard of living particularly challenging.

Conclusion
Yu v. Jonas demonstrates that South Carolina’s preference for permanent periodic alimony remains robust. While rehabilitative alimony serves an important purpose in appropriate cases, parties seeking this form of support must present detailed evidence establishing not only that rehabilitation is possible, but that it will allow the supported spouse to achieve the marital standard of living within a defined timeframe.

For family law practitioners, this case is a reminder to thoroughly develop the evidentiary record regarding vocational prospects, particularly in cases involving foreign-born spouses, language barriers, or credential transfer issues. Without such evidence, even seemingly reasonable arguments for rehabilitative alimony are unlikely to overcome South Carolina’s statutory preference for permanent periodic support.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have questions about alimony in your South Carolina divorce case, please consult with an experienced family law attorney.

Citation: Yu v. Jonas, Opinion No. 6108, Appellate Case No. 2023-000882 (S.C. Ct. App. March 26, 2025)

By Suzanne Klok|2025-11-12T17:55:44+00:00April 28th, 2025|Alimony, Family Law|Comments Off on Permanent Alimony in South Carolina: When Courts Favor Periodic Over Rehabilitative Support

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the Author: Suzanne Klok

Related Posts

What to Wear to South Carolina Family Court Hearings

South Carolina Rule 21 Updates 2025: Temporary Hearings

Passport Provisions in SC Custody Orders: Complete Guide for Parents

Answering Discovery in SC Family Court: What You Must Know

Supreme Court Clarifies “Timely” Rule 59(e) Motions in Family Court

Permanent Alimony in South Carolina: When Courts Favor Periodic Over Rehabilitative Support

Understanding when rehabilitative alimony is appropriate under South Carolina law

The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently issued an important decision in Yu v. Jonas (Opinion No. 6108, filed March 26, 2025) that reinforces the state’s strong preference for permanent periodic alimony over rehabilitative alimony. This case provides valuable guidance for family law practitioners and divorcing spouses about the high evidentiary burden required to support an award of rehabilitative alimony.

Case Background
Arpad Jonas and Saifei Yu met online while Jonas lived in South Carolina and Yu resided in China. After Jonas invited Yu to the United States, they married and Yu quickly became pregnant. Throughout the marriage, Jonas’s earnings as an IT director for a school district were the family’s sole source of support. The marriage was complicated by immigration issues that required Yu to return to China with the parties’ child for several years before she could legally re-enter the United States.

At the time of trial, Yu was employed as a teacher’s aide at their son’s school, earning approximately $16,000 annually—far below the standard of living the couple enjoyed during the marriage. Jonas appealed the family court’s award of permanent periodic alimony, arguing that Yu should instead receive rehabilitative alimony.

The Legal Framework
Under South Carolina Code Section 20-3-130(B)(3), rehabilitative alimony is designed to “provide for the rehabilitation of the supported spouse” with “modifiable ending dates coinciding with events considered appropriate by the court such as the completion of job training or education.”

However, South Carolina appellate courts have consistently held that permanent periodic alimony is favored under state law. As the Court of Appeals explained in Jenkins v. Jenkins, 345 S.C. 88, 95 (Ct. App. 2001), rehabilitative alimony is reserved for “exceptional circumstances.”

The High Bar for Rehabilitative Alimony
To justify an award of rehabilitative alimony, the record must demonstrate that:

1. The recipient will be self-sufficient at the end of the ordered payments, AND
2. The recipient will be able to maintain the same standard of living enjoyed during the marriage

The court’s hesitance stems from the recognition that rehabilitative alimony “seldom suffices to maintain the level of support the dependent spouse enjoyed as an incident to the marriage.” Johnson v. Johnson, 296 S.C. 289, 301 (Ct. App. 1988).

Why Jonas’s Appeal Failed
Jonas made several reasonable arguments: the marriage was relatively brief, Yu was educated (holding both high school and college degrees from China), she was able-bodied and capable of working, and she had demonstrated work capacity through her employment history.
However, the Court of Appeals found the evidentiary record insufficient to support rehabilitative alimony. The court noted there was:

No clear evidence of what specific training Yu would need
No testimony about the cost of such training
No evidence of how long training would take
No expert testimony about Yu’s earning capacity after training
No identification of what specific job Yu could reasonably obtain

While Yu testified she was transferring her Chinese degree to the United States and had inquired about becoming a teacher, she indicated her language skills needed improvement and that she would need “an additional degree or some sort of equivalent.” Even with these steps, Yu estimated it would take six months to a year to secure a teaching position, and becoming a paraprofessional would not significantly increase her current $16,000 annual income.

Procedural Issues
The court also noted that Jonas did not raise the issue of rehabilitative alimony until his motion to reconsider, which “strongly suggests his argument is not even preserved” under South Carolina law. At trial, Jonas had simply argued that alimony should last approximately two years based on his research showing alimony was “normally” for roughly half the length of the marriage.

The Dissenting Opinion
Judge Thomas authored a partial dissent, arguing that the case presented exactly the circumstances the legislature envisioned for rehabilitative alimony:

The marriage was short
Yu is young, healthy, and educated
Yu demonstrated desire to improve her English skills and job prospects
Evidence suggested Yu could become self-sufficient within “relatively few years”

Judge Thomas also noted that many cases establishing the preference for permanent periodic alimony “were decided before the comprehensive amendments to section 20-3-130 in 1990,” questioning whether this preference truly reflects current statutory intent.

Practical Implications for Family Law Practitioners
This case offers several important lessons for South Carolina family law attorneys:

1. Build a Detailed Record
If seeking rehabilitative alimony, counsel must present comprehensive evidence including:

Specific rehabilitation or training plans
Costs and duration of proposed training
Expert testimony on job market prospects
Projected earnings after rehabilitation
Timeline for achieving self-sufficiency at the marital standard of living

2. Raise All Arguments at Trial
Don’t wait until a motion to reconsider to raise alternative forms of alimony. Under Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455 (Ct. App. 1990), parties cannot use post-trial motions to raise issues that could have been addressed before judgment.

3. Understand the Default Position
Absent exceptional circumstances and substantial proof, South Carolina family courts will default to permanent periodic alimony. The burden is on the party seeking rehabilitative alimony to overcome this preference with clear and convincing evidence.

4. Consider Vocational Expert Testimony
In cases involving a supported spouse with foreign credentials, limited English proficiency, or unclear job prospects, vocational expert testimony may be essential to establish:

Transferability of foreign education/credentials
Realistic earning capacity
Specific steps needed for rehabilitation
Timeframe for achieving self-sufficiency

5. Address Language and Cultural Barriers
When a supported spouse faces language barriers or is navigating credential transfer from another country, these factors strengthen the case for permanent periodic alimony. Courts recognize these obstacles make achieving the marital standard of living particularly challenging.

Conclusion
Yu v. Jonas demonstrates that South Carolina’s preference for permanent periodic alimony remains robust. While rehabilitative alimony serves an important purpose in appropriate cases, parties seeking this form of support must present detailed evidence establishing not only that rehabilitation is possible, but that it will allow the supported spouse to achieve the marital standard of living within a defined timeframe.

For family law practitioners, this case is a reminder to thoroughly develop the evidentiary record regarding vocational prospects, particularly in cases involving foreign-born spouses, language barriers, or credential transfer issues. Without such evidence, even seemingly reasonable arguments for rehabilitative alimony are unlikely to overcome South Carolina’s statutory preference for permanent periodic support.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have questions about alimony in your South Carolina divorce case, please consult with an experienced family law attorney.

Citation: Yu v. Jonas, Opinion No. 6108, Appellate Case No. 2023-000882 (S.C. Ct. App. March 26, 2025)