Zokoff v. Lozada

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

George S.
Zokoff, Appellant,

v.

Marisa Lozada, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County

Rochelle Y. Conits, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-045

Heard January 12, 2012 – Filed January 25,
2012   

AFFIRMED

Oscar W. Bannister, of Greenville, for
Appellant.

Robert M. Rosenfeld, of Greenville, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Appellant George Zokoff appeals from an order of the
family court denying his request for a modification of child support.  On
appeal, Zokoff argues the family court erred by refusing to reduce the amount
of child support he was obligated to pay Respondent Marisa Lozada and by
refusing to recalculate his income for child support purposes pursuant to the
child support guidelines.  We affirm.

1.  We find the
family court did not err by refusing to reduce the amount of child support
Zokoff was obligated to pay because Zokoff had the means from which he could
continue to satisfy his child support obligation despite his unemployment.  See Miles v. Miles, 393 S.C. 111, 120, 711 S.E.2d 880, 885 (2011) (providing
a family court has the authority to modify the amount of a child support award
upon a showing of a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances); Calvert
v. Calvert, 287 S.C. 130, 138, 336 S.E.2d 884, 888-89 (Ct. App. 1985)
(holding a reduction in the salary or income of a supporting parent does not
necessarily justify a reduction in child support); Miller v. Miller, 299
S.C. 307, 310-11, 384 S.E.2d 715, 717 (1989) ("A downward modification in
child support based upon a decrease in the noncustodial parent's income is not
warranted absent a strong showing by the party seeking the change that he is no
longer in a condition to make the support payments prescribed by an earlier . .
. order."); Eagerton v. Eagerton, 265 S.C. 90, 95, 217 S.E.2d 146,
148 (1975) (holding when there is sufficient property and a means to continue
making the ordered payments, the supporting parent is called upon to use those assets
even where his or her income declines).

2.  We find the
family court did not err by refusing to recalculate Zokoff's income pursuant to
the child support guidelines because Zokoff failed to show a substantial change
in circumstances warranting a modification of his child support obligation.  See Bennett v. Rector, 389 S.C. 274, 281, 697 S.E.2d 715, 719 (Ct. App.
2010) ("Generally, the family court is required to follow the Guidelines
in determining the amount of child support."); Tilghman
v. Tilghman, 315 S.C. 76,
77, 431 S.E.2d 622, 623 (Ct. App. 1993) (holding child support guidelines
become applicable only upon a showing of substantial change of circumstances justifying
a modification of child support);  Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown,
Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (recognizing an
appellate court need not address additional issues if the resolution of another
issue is dispositive).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER,
and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.