Settles v. Settles

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Ruth Edith Settles,       
Appellant,

v.

Robert Crafton Settles,       
Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County

R. Kinard Johnson, Jr., Family Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-022

Submitted October 22, 2002 – Filed January
8, 2003

AFFIRMED

Ivey Toney, of Greenville, for appellant.

Wallace A. Mullinax, Jr., and David A. Wilson, both of Greenville,
for respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant
to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: As to Issue I: Bowers
v. Bowers, 349 S.C. 85, 97, 561 S.E.2d 610, 616 (Ct. App. 2002) (“The apportionment
of marital property is within the Family Court judge’s discretion and will not
be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.  Section 20-7-472 lists
fifteen factors for the Family Court to consider when making an equitable apportionment
of the marital estate.  The statute vests the Family Court with the discretion
to decide what weight should be assigned to the various factors.  On review,
this Court looks to the overall fairness of the apportionment, and if the result
is equitable, that this Court might have weighed specific factors differently
than the Family Court is irrelevant.” (internal citations omitted)); see
Pool v. Pool, 321 S.C. 84, 88-89, 467 S.E.2d 753, 756 (Ct. App. 1996)
(holding the family court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the husband
sixty percent of the marital estate when he made seventy percent of the direct
contributions to the marital assets); see Brandi v. Brandi, 302
S.C. 353, 357-58, 396 S.E.2d 124, 126 (Ct. App. 1990) (holding there was no
abuse of discretion in awarding the husband seventy percent of the marital property
because he made most of the direct contributions to the marital estate even
though he committed adultery, was in better health, and had a much greater earning
capacity).

As to Issue 2: First Savings Bank v. McLean, 314
S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (holding when an “[a]ppellant fails
to provide arguments or supporting authority for his assertion,” the issue is
deemed to be abandoned on appeal); see Rule 208(b)(1)(D), SCACR (stating
the brief of the appellant must contain, among other things, a discussion of
the issue with citations of authority).

As to Issue 3: Rule 208(b)(1)(C), SCACR (stating the brief
of the appellant must contain “the amount involved on appeal”); Rule 210(h),
SCACR (“[T]he appellate court will not consider any fact which does not appear
in the Record on Appeal.”); Forner v. Butler, 319 S.C. 275, 276 n.1,
460 S.E.2d 425, 426 n.1 (Ct. App. 1995) (“It is incumbent upon counsel to provide
material that complies with the Rules and facilitates appellate review.”)

AFFIRMED. [1]

CONNOR, STILWELL, and HOWARD, JJ., concur.

[1] Because oral argument would not aid the Court in
resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant
to Rule 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.