Lessard v. Lessard

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

Susan Malinda
Bolton Lessard, Respondent,

v.

Theodore Thomas
Lessard, III, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

 R. Kinard Johnson, Jr., Family Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-339

Heard March 4, 2009 – Filed June 15, 2009   

AFFIRMED

Kimberly F. Dunham, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Robert M. Rosenfeld, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Theodore Lessard (Husband) appeals from a family court
order apportioning the marital estate, awarding Susan Lessard (Wife) $2,500.00
per month in alimony, and awarding Wife attorney's and private investigator's
fees.  We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Grant v. S.C. Coastal Council,
319 S.C. 348, 355-56, 461 S.E.2d 388, 392 (1995) (holding alleged inaccuracies
in an order are not preserved for appeal where no post-trial motion was filed
raising such an issue); Simpson v.
Simpson, 377 S.C. 527, 538, 660
S.E.2d 278, 283 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding a home was transmuted into marital
property through the parties' use of it in support of their marriage); Ellerbe v. Ellerbe, 323 S.C. 283, 289, 473
S.E.2d 881, 884-85 (Ct. App. 1996) (holding that if an order of equitable
apportionment does not contemplate the sale or liquidation of an asset, the tax
consequences of such a sale or liquidation should not be considered); Hickum v. Hickum, 320 S.C. 97, 102, 463 S.E.2d 321, 324 (Ct. App. 1995) (finding marital
debt is debt "incurred for the joint benefit of the parties regardless of
whether the parties are legally jointly liable for the debt or whether one
party is legally individually liable."); Honea v. Honea, 292 S.C. 456, 458, 357 S.E.2d 191, 192 (Ct. App. 1987) ("[A]
party cannot sit back at trial without offering proof, then come to this Court
complaining of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the family court's
findings."); Allen v. Allen, 347 S.C. 177, 186, 544 S.E.2d 421, 425
(Ct. App. 2001) (holding this court's inquiry in
reviewing awards of alimony is not whether the family court gave the same
weight to particular factors as this court would have, but instead whether the
family court abused its considerable discretion in assigning weight to the
applicable factors); Doe v. Doe, 319 S.C. 151,
157, 459 S.E.2d 892, 896 (Ct. App. 1995) (finding an award of attorney's fees is
within the sound discretion of the family court and absent an abuse of
discretion, should not be disturbed on appeal); Stevenson v. Stevenson,
295 S.C. 412, 415, 368 S.E.2d 901, 903 (1988) (allowing the reimbursement of
expenses, including investigator's fess, that are reasonably and necessarily
incurred in obtaining evidence of a spouse's infidelity).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and PIEPER,
J., and LOCKEMY, J., concur.