Ross v. Ross

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

Jekeithlyn Ross, Respondent,

v.

Jimmy Ross, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-001252

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Jack A. Landis, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-436
Submitted August 1, 2014 – Filed December 3, 2014

AFFIRMED

Richard H. Rhodes and William Hardwick Rhodes, both
of Burts Turner & Rhodes, of Spartanburg, for Appellant.

N. Douglas Brannon, of Turnipseed & Brannon Law
Firm, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jimmy Ross (Husband) appeals the family court's order, arguing
the family court erred by: (1) awarding permanent, periodic alimony of $1,500 per
month, and (2) awarding attorney's fees to Jekeithlyn Ross (Wife).
1. We find the preponderance of the evidence supports the family court's decision
regarding permanent, periodic alimony. See S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-130(C)
(2014); Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510, 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012)
(explaining that when reviewing appeals from the family court, an appellate court
may find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the
evidence); Craig v. Craig, 365 S.C. 285, 292, 617 S.E.2d 359, 362 (2005)
("Generally, alimony should place the supported spouse, as nearly as practical, in
the same position as enjoyed during the marriage.").

2. We find the preponderance of the evidence supports the family court's grant of
attorney's fees to Wife. See Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 390, 709 S.E.2d 650,
654-55 (2011) ("De novo review permits appellate court fact-finding,
notwithstanding the presence of evidence supporting the [family] court's findings."
(emphasis omitted)); Reiss v. Reiss, 392 S.C. 198, 210, 708 S.E.2d 799, 805 (Ct.
App. 2011) ("In deciding whether to award attorney's fees and costs, the family
court should consider (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) [the] effect of the attorney's fee on each party's standard of
living." (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)). With regard to
Husband's argument that Wife's attorney's affidavit was insufficient to support the
amount of attorney's fees, we find this argument unpreserved. See Doe v. Doe, 370
S.C. 206, 212, 634 S.E.2d 51, 54-55 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[W]hen an appellant neither
raises an issue at trial nor through a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion, the issue is not
preserved for appellate review."). Accordingly, the decision of the family court is
affirmed.

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

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