Ragsdale v. Ragsdale

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Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-291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.