Zetz v. Zetz

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

Elizabeth M. Zetz, Appellant,

v.

Michael R. Zetz, Respondent.

Appellate Case No.
2011-183049

Appeal From Richland County

Robert S. Armstrong, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-316

Heard May 9, 2012 – Filed May 23, 2012

AFFIRMED

Pope D.
Johnson, III, of Johnson & Barnette, LLP, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Howard
S. Sheftman, of Finkel Law Firm, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Elizabeth M. Zetz appeals the family court's order
modifying the child support previously awarded in a final settlement.  On
appeal, she argues the family court erred in (1) modifying the child support, (2)
improperly applying the child support guidelines, and (3) finding sufficient
evidence to warrant a reduction of child support.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the
following authorities:

1. As to whether the family court applied the proper
standard in determining whether to modify Michael R. Zetz's child support
obligation: Floyd v. Morgan, 383 S.C. 469, 475, 681 S.E.2d 570, 573
(2009) ("A child support award rests in the discretion of the [family
court] judge, and will not be altered on appeal absent abuse of
discretion."); Degenhart v. Burriss, 360 S.C. 497, 500, 602 S.E.2d
96, 97 (Ct. App. 2004) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision
is controlled by some error of law or is based on findings of fact that are
without evidentiary support."); Miles
v. Miles, 393 S.C. 111, 120-21, 711
S.E.2d 880, 885 (2011) ("[W]hile the burden to prove entitlement to a
modification of spousal or child support
is a substantial one, the same burden applies whether the family court order in
question emanated from an order following a contested hearing or a hearing to
approve an agreement."); Lewis v.
Lewis,  392 S.C. 381, 389 n.5, 709
S.E.2d 650, 654 n.5 (2011) ("'[T]he appellant is not relieved of his
burden of convincing the appellate court the trial judge committed error in his
findings."' (quoting Pinckney v. Warren, 344 S.C. 382, 387–88, 544 S.E.2d
620, 623 (2001))).

2. As to whether the family court erred in evaluating
and applying the child support guidelines: Bennett v. Rector, 389 S.C.
274, 281, 697 S.E.2d 715, 719 (Ct. App. 2010) ("Generally, the family
court is required to follow the [g]uidelines in determining the amount of child
support."); Woodall v. Woodall, 322 S.C. 7, 13, 471 S.E.2d 154, 158
(1996) (holding that while the guidelines govern all actions involving child
support, the family court retains discretion when making the final award); S.C.
Code Ann. Regs. 114-4710(B) (Supp. 2011) ("Deviation from the guidelines
should be the exception rather than the rule.  When the court deviates, it must
make written findings that clearly state the nature and extent of the variation
from the guidelines.").

3. As to whether the family court erred in reducing
the child support: Barrow v. Barrow, 394 S.C. 603, 609, 716 S.E.2d 302,
305 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The party contesting the family court's decision
bears the burden of demonstrating the family court's factual findings are not
supported by the preponderance of the evidence.").

AFFIRMED.

Pieper, Konduros, and GEATHERS,
JJ., concur.