Edmonds v. Edmonds

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: January 25, 2012
• Docket: 2012-UP-020
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Tracy Jim Edmonds, Appellant,

v.

Brenda Joyce Edmonds, Respondent.

---

Appeal From Pickens County
Alvin D. Johnson, Family Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-020
Submitted January 3, 2012 – Filed January 25, 2012

---

AFFIRMED

---

J. Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Kirby Rakes Mitchell, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Tracy Jim Edmonds (Husband) appeals the final family court order modifying his alimony and awarding attorney's fees to Brenda Joyce Edmonds (Wife).  Husband argues the family court erred in (1) failing to terminate alimony retroactively and (2) awarding attorney's fees to Wife rather than Husband.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the family court erred in failing to terminate alimony retroactively: Riggs v. Riggs, 353 S.C. 230, 236, 578 S.E.2d 3, 6 (2003) ("The modification of alimony is within the sound discretion of the family court and will not be overturned absent an abuse thereof."); Davis v. Davis, 372 S.C. 64, 79, 641 S.E.2d 446, 454 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[T]he family court . . . may grant alimony in such amounts and for such term as the [court] considers appropriate under the circumstances.").

2. As to whether the family court erred in awarding attorney's fees to Wife rather than Husband: Davis, 372 S.C. at 88, 641 S.E.2d at 458 ("An award of attorney's fees lies within the sound discretion of the family court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."); E.D.M. v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471, 476-77, 415 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1992) ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be considered: (1) the party's ability to pay his/her own attorney's fee; (2) beneficial results obtained by the attorney; (3) the parties' respective financial conditions; [and] (4) effect of the attorney's fee on each party's standard of living.").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

---

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