Opinion
2012-UP-337
05-30-2012
Angela W. Childers, Respondent, v. James R. Childers, Appellant.
H. Fred Kuhn, Jr., of Beaufort, for Appellant. Kenneth L. Tootle, of Beaufort, for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Submitted May 1, 2012
Appeal From Beaufort County Peter L. Fuge, Family Court Judge.
H. Fred Kuhn, Jr., of Beaufort, for Appellant.
Kenneth L. Tootle, of Beaufort, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM
James R. Childers (Husband) appeals a family court order modifying a divorce decree entered between him and Angela W. Childers (Wife). On appeal, Husband argues the family court erred in (1) calculating his new child support obligation and arrearage in child support, (2) ordering him to pay $6, 446.70, representing half of his daughter's college expenses, and (3) ordering him to pay $5, 000.00 of Wife's attorney's fees. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
1. As to whether the family court erred in calculating Husband's new child support obligation and his child support arrearage: Widman v. Widman, 348 S.C. 97, 118-19, 557 S.E.2d 693, 704-05 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding mathematical mistakes must be brought to the attention of the family court to be preserved for appeal).
2. As to whether the family court erred in ordering Husband to pay $6, 446.70, representing half of his daughter's college expenses: Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212, 634 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding the wife's argument regarding the family court's identification and valuation of marital property was not preserved for appellate review because she failed to point out the alleged error to the family court in her Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion); Arnal v. Arnal, 363 S.C. 268, 299, 609 S.E.2d 821, 838 (Ct. App. 2005), aff'd as modified, 371 S.C. 10, 636 S.E.2d 864 (2006) (stating wife failed to preserve claim that family court erred in excluding from the final order a parcel of land that was marital property, when, after the final order was issued, wife did not file a motion to alter or amend judgment raising the issue of the value of parcel to the family court judge).
3. As to whether the family court erred in ordering Husband to pay $5, 000.00 of Wife's attorney's fees: Lanier v. Lanier, 364 S.C. 211, 215, 612 S.E.2d 456, 458 (Ct. App. 2005) (stating that in family court appeals, this court may find facts in agreement with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 394, 709 S.E.2d 650, 656 (2011) (stating that the decision to award attorney's fees "'rests within the sound discretion of the family court'" (quoting Brunner v. Brunner, 296 S.C. 60, 62, 370 S.E.2d 614, 616 (Ct. App. 1988))); E.D.M. v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471, 476-77, 415 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1992) (providing that in deciding whether to award attorney's fees, the family court should consider: (1) the parties' ability to pay their own fees; (2) the beneficial results obtained by counsel; (3) the respective financial conditions of the parties; and (4) the effect of the fee on each party's standard of living); Glasscock v. Glasscock, 304 S.C. 158, 161, 403 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1991) (holding that in determining a reasonable attorney's fee, the family court should consider: "(1) the nature, extent, and difficulty of the case; (2) the time necessarily devoted to the case; (3) professional standing of counsel; (4) contingency of compensation; (5) beneficial results obtained; and (6) customary legal fees for similar services").
AFFIRMED.
PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.