Sun v. Sun

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

Liling Sun, Respondent,

v.

Joseph C. Sun, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001107

Appeal From Beaufort County
Timothy H. Pogue, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-313
Submitted June 1, 2017 – Filed July 26, 2017

AFFIRMED

Joseph C. Sun, of Bluffton, pro se.

Liling X. Sun, of Spotsylvania, Virginia, pro se.

PER CURIAM: Joseph C. Sun appeals the family court's orders dismissing his
rule to show cause and denying his motion to reconsider. Sun argues the family
court erred by (1) denying his motion to reconsider, (2) dismissing his rule to show
cause, (3) awarding attorney's fees to Liling X. Sun, and (4) not adjourning the rule
to show cause hearing after thirty minutes. We affirm.1

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
1. As to issues one, two, and four, we find these issues have been abandoned. See
Fields v. Melrose Ltd. P'ship, 312 S.C. 102, 106, 439 S.E.2d 283, 285 (Ct. App.
1993) ("An issue raised on appeal but not argued in the brief is deemed abandoned
and will not be considered by the appellate court.").

2. As to issue three, we find the family court did not err in awarding attorney's
fees. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-3-530(A)(38) (2010) (explaining the family court
has jurisdiction "to hear and determine an action [in which] either party in his or
her complaint, answer, counterclaim, or motion for pendente lite relief prays for
the allowance of suit money[,]" including attorney's fees); Michael Scott B. v.
Melissa M., 378 S.C. 452, 456, 663 S.E.2d 58, 60 (2008) ("The decision to award
attorney's fees is a matter within the sound discretion of the [family court], and the
award will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."); E.D.M. v.
T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471, 476-77, 415 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1992) (explaining the family
court should consider the following factors when determining whether it should
award attorney's fees: "(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");
Glasscock v. Glasscock, 304 S.C. 158, 161, 403 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1991) (providing
the family court should consider the following factors when determining the
amount of attorney's fees to award: "(1) the nature, extent, and difficulty of the
case; (2) the time necessarily devoted to the case; (3) professional standing of
counsel; (4) contingency of compensation; (5) beneficial results obtained; [and] (6)
customary legal fees for similar services"); Bowers v. Bowers, 349 S.C. 85, 98, 561
S.E.2d 610, 617 (Ct. App. 2002) ("Rule 26(a) of the South Carolina Rules of
Family Court requires the court to 'set forth the specific findings of fact and
conclusions of law to support the court's decision.'" (quoting Rule 26(a), SCRFC));
Griffith v. Griffith, 332 S.C. 630, 646-47, 506 S.E.2d 526, 535 (Ct. App. 1998)
("[W]hen an order from the family court is issued in violation of Rule 26(a),
SCRFC, the appellate court 'may remand the matter to the trial court or, whe[n] the
record is sufficient, make its own findings of fact in accordance with the
preponderance of the evidence.'" (quoting Holcombe v. Hardee, 304 S.C. 522, 524,
405 S.E.2d 821, 822 (1991))); Taylor v. Taylor, 294 S.C. 296, 299, 363 S.E.2d
909, 911 (Ct. App. 1987) ("The burden is on the appellant to furnish a sufficient
record on appeal from which this court can make an intelligent review.").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.