Ragsdale v. Ragsdale

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Ragsdale v. Ragsdale

DecidedJune 4, 2008

Docket2008-UP-291

StatusUnpublished

This text of Ragsdale v. Ragsdale (Ragsdale v. Ragsdale) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ragsdale v. Ragsdale, (S.C. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

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

Olivia G. Ragsdale, Respondent,

v.

John Knox Ragsdale, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County
George M. McFaddin, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-291
Submitted June 1, 2008 Filed June 4, 2008

AFFIRMED

Melvin Dean Bannister, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Robert L. Hallman, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this domestic action, John Ragsdale (Husband) appeals the family court's division of marital assets and obligations and the award of attorney's fees to Olivia Ragsdale (Wife). [1]

We affirm the order of the family court pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authority: Wooten v. Wooten, 364 S.C. 532, 540, 615 S.E.2d 98, 102 (2005) (stating the appellate court need not ignore the fact that the family court, who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony); Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 214, 634 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006) ("Even if the family court commits error in distributing marital property, the error will be deemed harmless if the overall distribution is fair."); Griffith v. Griffith, 332 S.C. 630, 645, 506 S.E.2d 526, 534 (Ct. App. 1998) ("In determining whether to award attorney's fees, the court should consider each party's ability to pay his or her own fee; the beneficial results obtained by the attorney; the parties' respective financial conditions; and the effect of the attorney's fee on each party's standard of living."); Hailey v. Hailey, 357 S.C. 18, 31, 590 S.E.2d 495, 502 (Ct. App. 2003) (noting the award of attorney's fees is within the discretion of the family court).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, J., THOMAS, J., and PIEPER, J.J., concur.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

Olivia G. Ragsdale, Respondent,

v.

John Knox Ragsdale, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County
George M. McFaddin, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-291
Submitted June 1, 2008 Filed June 4, 2008

AFFIRMED

Melvin Dean Bannister, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Robert L. Hallman, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this domestic action, John Ragsdale (Husband) appeals the family court's division of marital assets and obligations and the award of attorney's fees to Olivia Ragsdale (Wife). [1]

We affirm the order of the family court pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authority: Wooten v. Wooten, 364 S.C. 532, 540, 615 S.E.2d 98, 102 (2005) (stating the appellate court need not ignore the fact that the family court, who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony); Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 214, 634 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006) ("Even if the family court commits error in distributing marital property, the error will be deemed harmless if the overall distribution is fair."); Griffith v. Griffith, 332 S.C. 630, 645, 506 S.E.2d 526, 534 (Ct. App. 1998) ("In determining whether to award attorney's fees, the court should consider each party's ability to pay his or her own fee; the beneficial results obtained by the attorney; the parties' respective financial conditions; and the effect of the attorney's fee on each party's standard of living."); Hailey v. Hailey, 357 S.C. 18, 31, 590 S.E.2d 495, 502 (Ct. App. 2003) (noting the award of attorney's fees is within the discretion of the family court).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, J., THOMAS, J., and PIEPER, J.J., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ragsdale v. Ragsdale, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ragsdale-v-ragsdale-scctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack