Beeson v. Beeson

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

Mary Anne Goldsmith Beeson, Appellant,

v.

Joseph Alford Crews Beeson, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001983

Appeal From Anderson County
Edgar H. Long, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-567
Submitted October 1, 2015 – Filed December 23, 2015

AFFIRMED

J. Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Appellant.

David James Brousseau, of McIntosh, Sherard, Sullivan
& Brousseau, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Crossland v. Crossland, 408 S.C. 443, 451, 759 S.E.2d 419, 423
(2014) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal
issues de novo."); Mick-Skaggs v. Skaggs, 411 S.C. 94, 101, 766 S.E.2d 870, 873,
(Ct. App. 2014) ([D]e novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating
error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court."); S.C. Code Ann. §
20-3-620(C) (2014) ("The [family] court's order as it affects distribution of marital
property shall be a final order not subject to modification except by appeal or
remand following proper appeal."); Simpson v. Simpson, 404 S.C. 563, 571, 746
S.E.2d 54, 58-59 (Ct. App. 2013) ("[T]he law in South Carolina is exceedingly
clear that the family court does not have the authority to modify court ordered
property divisions." (quoting Green v. Green, 327 S.C. 577, 581, 491 S.E.2d 260,
262 (Ct. App. 1997))).

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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