Miles v. Miles

THIS OPINION
HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN
ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

James Richard
Miles, Appellant,

v.

Theodora M.
Miles, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenwood County

Brian M. Gibbons, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-007

Submitted December 1, 2008 – Filed January
7, 2009   

AFFIRMED

Matthew P. Turner and J. Michael Turner Sr., both of Laurens, for
Appellant.

Rauch C. Wise and Marvin R. Watson, both of Greenwood, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: James R. Miles appeals from the family court’s order:
(1) maintaining his obligation to provide health and dental insurance to his
former wife, and (2) awarding attorney’s fees of $1,000 to his former wife.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2),
SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  Regarding Miles’s obligation to maintain his former wife’s
health and dental insurance through his former employer’s health insurance
plan, pursuant to the parties’ Agreement and the court’s subsequent divorce
decree of August 16, 2000: Smith-Cooper
v. Cooper, 344 S.C. 289, 295, 543 S.E.2d 271, 274 (Ct. App. 2001) (“[W]here
an agreement is clear and capable of legal construction, the court’s only
function is to interpret its lawful meaning and the intent of the parties as
found within the agreement.”); Lindsay v. Lindsay, 328 S.C. 329, 337,
491 S.E.2d 583, 587 (Ct. App. 1997) (“Unambiguous marital agreements will be
enforced in accordance with their terms, while ambiguous agreements will be
examined in the same manner as other agreements in order to determine the
intention of the parties.”).  

2.  Regarding the family court’s award of $1,000 in attorney’s
fees to Miles’s former wife:  S.C. Code
Ann. § 20-7-420(38) (Supp. 2007) (granting the family court jurisdiction to
award a reasonable sum for attorney’s fees if the request appears
well-founded); Upchurch v. Upchurch, 367 S.C. 16, 28, 624 S.E.2d 643,
648-49 (2006) (“The award of attorney’s fees is left to the discretion of the
trial judge and will only be disturbed upon a showing of abuse of discretion.”); Glasscock v. Glasscock, 304 S.C. 158, 161, 403 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1991)
(stating the family court should consider the following factors in determining
reasonable attorney’s fees: (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) the customary legal fees for similar
services).

AFFIRMED.[1]

WILLIAMS,
PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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