Holliday v. Holliday

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

Debra L. Holliday, Respondent,

v.

Bobby R. Holliday, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001283

Appeal From Clarendon County
Gordon B. Jenkinson, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-240
Submitted April 1, 2022 – Filed June 8, 2022

AFFIRMED

John Stephen Keffer, of Young, Keffer & Donnald, PA,
of Sumter, and William H. Johnson, of Johnson, DuRant
& Nester, LLC, of Manning, both for Appellant.

William Ceth Land, of Land Parker Welch LLC, of
Manning, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Bobby R. Holliday (Husband) appeals the family court's order,
arguing the family court erred in awarding Debra L. Holliday (Wife) a greater
percentage of proceeds from a personal injury action settlement and in failing to
award him attorney's fees and costs. Based on our de novo review, we affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

1. The family court did not err in awarding Husband thirty-three percent of the
personal injury action settlement. See Marsh v. Marsh, 313 S.C. 42, 46, 437
S.E.2d 34, 36 (1993) ("[P]roceeds of a personal injury settlement acquired during
the marriage are marital property subject to the family court's jurisdiction."); id. at
45, 437 S.E.2d at 36 ("[R]ecognition of the award or settlement as marital property
does not mean the proceeds of the award must be divided and a portion awarded to
the non-injured spouse. To the contrary; the family court may, and in many cases
probably should, award the proceeds entirely to the injured spouse."); Tomlinson v.
Melton, 428 S.C. 607, 611, 837 S.E.2d 230, 232 (Ct. App. 2019) ("[T]he appellate
court has the authority to find the facts in accordance with its own view of the
preponderance of the evidence."); id. ("However, this broad scope of review does
not require the appellate court to disregard the fact that the family court, which saw
and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and
assign comparative weight to their testimony."); id. at 611-12, 837 S.E.2d at 232
("[T]he appellant bears the burden of convincing the appellate court that the family
court committed error or that the preponderance of the evidence is against the
court's findings.").

2. The family court did not err in failing to award Husband attorney's fees and
costs. Husband's argument that he was entitled to an award of fees and costs
because he incurred extra attorney's fees and costs due to Wife's incorrect
valuations of the marital property is not preserved for appellate review because this
argument was not raised to and ruled upon by the family court. See Doe v. Doe,
370 S.C. 206, 212, 634 S.E.2d 51, 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."). Further, considering the evidence in the
record, we hold Husband failed to meet his burden in proving the family court
erred in ordering the parties to pay their own fees and costs. See Stone v.
Thompson, 428 S.C. 79, 92, 833 S.E.2d 266, 272 (2019) (stating the appellate court
"reviews a family court's award of attorney's fees de novo"); Tomlinson, 428 at
611-12, 837 S.E.2d at 232 ("[T]he appellant bears the burden of convincing the
appellate court that the family court committed error or that the preponderance of
the evidence is against the court's findings."); 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, the family court considers the following factors: "(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").

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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