Foster v. Foster

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

Sloane McCollum Foster, Respondent,

v.
Marshall Alan Foster, Appellant.

__________

Appeal From Greenville County
Letitia H. Verdin, Family Court Judge
__________

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-451
Submitted May 1, 2012 – Filed July 18, 2012
__________

AFFIRMED
__________

Scarlet Bell Moore, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Oscar W. Bannister, of Greenville, for Respondent.

Jennifer L. Coyle, of Greenville, for Guardian ad
Litem.
PER CURIAM: Marshall Alan Foster (Husband) appeals the family
court's divorce decree, arguing the family court erred in: (1) requiring
Husband to pay nine hundred dollars per month in alimony; (2) equitably
dividing the debts and assets of the marriage; and (3) ordering Husband to
pay attorney's fees. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the
following authorities:

1. As to whether the family court erred in requiring Husband to pay
nine hundred dollars per month in alimony: Davis v. Davis, 372 S.C. 64, 79,
641 S.E.2d 446, 454 (Ct. App. 2006) ("South Carolina law provides that the
family court . . . may grant alimony in such amounts and for such term as the
[court] considers appropriate under the circumstances."); Pirri v. Pirri, 369
S.C. 258, 267, 631 S.E.2d 279, 284 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding that in making
an alimony award, "[n]o one factor is dispositive" (quoting Allen v. Allen,
347 S.C. 177, 184, 554 S.E.2d 421, 425 (Ct. App. 2001))).

2. As to whether the family court erred in equitably dividing the
debts and assets of the marriage: Deidun v. Deidun, 362 S.C. 47, 58, 606
S.E.2d 489, 495 (Ct. App. 2004) ("If the end result is equitable, it is irrelevant
that the appellate court would have arrived at a different apportionment.").

3. As to whether the family court erred in ordering Husband to pay
attorney's fees: Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510, 722 S.E.2d 222,
223-24 (2012) (holding the decision to award attorney's fees is within the
family court's discretion and although appellate review is de novo, the
appellant still has the burden to show the family court erred).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.

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