Lessard v. Lessard

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: June 15, 2009
• Docket: 2009-UP-339
• Status: Unpublished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

Susan Malinda Bolton Lessard, Respondent,

v.

Theodore Thomas Lessard, III, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Greenville County
 R. Kinard Johnson, Jr., Family Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-339
Heard March 4, 2009 – Filed June 15, 2009   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Kimberly F. Dunham, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Robert M. Rosenfeld, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Theodore Lessard (Husband) appeals from a family court order apportioning the marital estate, awarding Susan Lessard (Wife) $2,500.00 per month in alimony, and awarding Wife attorney's and private investigator's fees.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Grant v. S.C. Coastal Council, 319 S.C. 348, 355-56, 461 S.E.2d 388, 392 (1995) (holding alleged inaccuracies in an order are not preserved for appeal where no post-trial motion was filed raising such an issue); Simpson v. Simpson, 377 S.C. 527, 538, 660 S.E.2d 278, 283 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding a home was transmuted into marital property through the parties' use of it in support of their marriage); Ellerbe v. Ellerbe, 323 S.C. 283, 289, 473 S.E.2d 881, 884-85 (Ct. App. 1996) (holding that if an order of equitable apportionment does not contemplate the sale or liquidation of an asset, the tax consequences of such a sale or liquidation should not be considered); Hickum v. Hickum, 320 S.C. 97, 102, 463 S.E.2d 321, 324 (Ct. App. 1995) (finding marital debt is debt "incurred for the joint benefit of the parties regardless of whether the parties are legally jointly liable for the debt or whether one party is legally individually liable."); Honea v. Honea, 292 S.C. 456, 458, 357 S.E.2d 191, 192 (Ct. App. 1987) ("[A] party cannot sit back at trial without offering proof, then come to this Court complaining of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the family court's findings."); Allen v. Allen, 347 S.C. 177, 186, 544 S.E.2d 421, 425 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding this court's inquiry in reviewing awards of alimony is not whether the family court gave the same weight to particular factors as this court would have, but instead whether the family court abused its considerable discretion in assigning weight to the applicable factors); Doe v. Doe, 319 S.C. 151, 157, 459 S.E.2d 892, 896 (Ct. App. 1995) (finding an award of attorney's fees is within the sound discretion of the family court and absent an abuse of discretion, should not be disturbed on appeal); Stevenson v. Stevenson, 295 S.C. 412, 415, 368 S.E.2d 901, 903 (1988) (allowing the reimbursement of expenses, including investigator's fess, that are reasonably and necessarily incurred in obtaining evidence of a spouse's infidelity).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and PIEPER, J., and LOCKEMY, J., concur.