McGowin v. McGowin

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

Barbara S.
McGowin, Appellant,

v.

Jeffrey D. McGowin, Respondent.

Appeal From Berkeley County

Wayne M. Creech, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-076

Heard December 7, 2011 – Filed February 8,
2012   

AFFIRMED

Thomas Ryan Phillips, of Charleston, for
Appellant.

Mark Andrew Redmond, of Charleston, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In
this domestic action, Barbara McGowin (Wife) sought a change of custody of a
minor child, child support, restoration of the prior marital residence to her possession,
a home maintenance fee, and attorney's fees.  After trial, the family court
entered a Final Order terminating Wife's alimony, modifying Jeffrey McGowin's
(Husband) child support obligation, denying both parties' requests for
attorney's fees, and incorporating a pretrial agreement made between the
parties. She now contends the family court erred in treating her alimony award
as rehabilitative, terminating her alimony award, and denying her request for
attorney's fees.  We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority:

1. As to whether the family court
improperly treated the award of alimony as rehabilitative rather than permanent
and periodic, we find the issue is not preserved for our review.  Foster v.
Foster, 393 S.C. 95, 99, 711 S.E.2d 878, 880 (2011) (stating that "[i]n
order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must both raise that
issue to the trial court and obtain a ruling").

2. As to whether the family court
erred in finding an unanticipated, substantial change in circumstances
sufficient to warrant a termination of Wife's award of alimony, we affirm the
family court.  Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 384, 709 S.E.2d 650, 651
(2011) (finding this court reviews appeals from the family court de novo); Fiddie
v. Fiddie, 384 S.C. 120, 127, 681 S.E.2d 42, 46 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating
that upon a substantial and material change in circumstances, the family court
may modify an alimony obligation); Fiddie, 384 S.C. at 127, 681 S.E.2d
at 46 (stating moreover, the change in circumstances must be unanticipated); Miles
v. Miles, 355 S.C. 511, 519, 586 S.E.2d 136, 140 (Ct. App. 2003)
(commenting that "[m]any of the same considerations relevant to the
initial setting of an alimony award may be applied in the modification context
as well, including the parties' standard of living during the marriage, each
party's earning capacity, and the supporting spouse's ability to continue to
support the other spouse").

3. As to whether the
family court considered the appropriate factors in reaching its decision to
deny Wife's request for attorney's fees, we affirm the family court.  E.D.M.
v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471, 476-77, 415 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1992) (stating that
when deciding whether to award attorney's fees and costs, the family court should
consider the following: "(1) the party's ability to pay his/her own
attorney's fee; (2) beneficial results obtained by the attorney; (3) the
parties' respective financial conditions; and (4) effect of the attorney's fee
on each party's standard of living").

AFFIRMED.

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