Middleton v. Middleton

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: January 4, 2008
• Docket: 2008-UP-009
• Status: Unpublished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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

William K. Middleton, Appellant,

v.

Julie A. Middleton, Respondent.

---

Appeal From Anderson County
 Timothy M. Cain, Family Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-009
Submitted December 1, 2007 – Filed January 4, 2008

---

AFFIRMED

---

W. Patrick Yon, of Anderson, for Appellant.

Hugh W. Welborn, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  William Middleton appeals from the family court’s order denying his request to reduce his child support and alimony obligations, finding him in willful contempt for failing to make court-ordered child support and alimony payments, and requiring him to pay Julie Middleton’s attorneys’ fees.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Hopkins v. Hopkins, 343 S.C. 301, 305, 540 S.E.2d 454, 456 (2000) (noting the question of child support is largely within the discretion of the trial judge whose decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is shown); Calvert v. Calvert, 287 S.C. 130, 138, 336 S.E.2d 884, 888-89 (Ct. App. 1985) (“The mere fact that a supporting spouse’s salary or income has been reduced does not of itself require a reduction of either alimony or child support.”); S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1350 (Supp. 2006) (“An adult who willfully violates, neglects, or refuses to obey or perform a lawful order of the court . . . may be proceeded against for contempt of court.”); Brandt v. Gooding, 368 S.C. 618, 627, 630 S.E.2d 259, 263 (2006) (stating that a decision regarding contempt should be reversed on appeal only if no evidence supports it or the trial court has abused its discretion); Browning v. Browning, 366 S.C. 255, 263, 621 S.E.2d 389, 393 (Ct. App. 2005) (“An abuse of discretion occurs either when the court is controlled by some error of law or where the order, based upon findings of fact, lacks evidentiary support.”); Donahue v. Donahue, 299 S.C. 353, 365, 384 S.E.2d 741, 748 (1989) (“An award of attorney’s fees and costs is a discretionary matter not to be overturned absent abuse by the trial court.”); Singleton v. Collins, 251 S.C. 208, 210-11, 161 S.E.2d 246, 247 (1968) (“An attorney has a right to be paid for professional services rendered, and where there is no express contract, the law will imply one. . . . Whether the services were rendered, and their value, are matters of fact to be decided . . . by the court below, and no appeal lies therefrom if the findings of fact are supported by any competent evidence.”).

For the foregoing reasons, the family court’s order is

AFFIRMED.[1]

HEARN, C.J., and KITTREDGE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

---

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