McCormick v. McCormick

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: June 18, 2003
• Docket: 2003-UP-412
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

---

Isaac “Frank” McCormick,        Respondent,

v.

Edna C. McCormick,        Appellant.

---

Appeal From Horry County
Tommy B. Edwards, Family Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2003-UP-412
Submitted June 9, 2003 - Filed June 18, 2003 

---

AFFIRMED

---

J. Michael Taylor, of Columbia; for appellant.

Anita Ruth Floyd, of Conway; for respondent.

PER CURIAM:  The parties obtained a divorce in May 2001.  Edna C. McCormick, the wife, appeals several aspects of the family court’s final order.  The issues on appeal include identification and valuation of marital property, child support, alimony, and attorney fees. 

We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Issue 1:  S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-472 (Supp. 2002) (requiring the family court to “give weight in such proportion as it finds appropriate” to “all” of fifteen factors enumerated in the provision); Marsh v. Marsh, 313 S.C. 42, 46, 437 S.E.2d 34, 36 (holding “proceeds of a personal injury settlement acquired during the marriage are marital property subject to the family court’s jurisdiction”), aff’d, 313 S.C. 42, 437 S.E.2d 34 (1993); Peterkin v. Peterkin, 293 S.C. 311, 360 S.E.2d 311 (1987) (stating transmutation may occur when nonmarital property is used in such a manner as to show the parties intended to make it marital property); Johnson v. Johnson, 296 S.C. 289, 372 S.E.2d 107 (Ct. App. 1988) (holding that, on appeal, this court looks to the overall fairness of the apportionment); Bungener v. Bungener, 291 S.C. 247, 353 S.E.2d 147 (Ct. App. 1987) (holding the apportionment of marital property will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion); Issue 2:  Mitchell v. Mitchell, 283 S.C. 87, 320 S.E.2d 706 (1984) (holding child support awards are addressed to the sound discretion of the family court); Engle v. Engle, 343 S.C. 444, 449, 539 S.E.2d 712, 714 (Ct. App. 2000) (“Where a parent voluntarily lessens his or her earning capacity, this Court will closely scrutinize the facts to determine the parent’s earning potential, rather than the parent’s actual income.”); Issue 3:  S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-130(C) (1985 & Supp. 2002) (listing factors for the family court to consider in determining an alimony award); Allen v. Allen, 347 S.C. 177, 554 S.E.2d 421 (Ct. App. 2001) (noting an award of alimony rests within the sound discretion of the family court); Issue 4:  E.D.M. v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471, 415 S.E.2d 812 (1992) (enumerating factors to be considered by the family court in awarding attorney fees); Stevenson v. Stevenson, 295 S.C. 412, 368 S.E.2d 901 (1988) (holding an award of attorney fees will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion).  

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY and HOWARD, JJ., and BEATTY, A.J., concur.

---

[1]   Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.