Dearden v. Dearden

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

Georgina Anne Dearden, Respondent,

v.

Ian Hargraves Dearden, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002505

Appeal From Richland County
Anne Gue Jones, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-023
Submitted November 1, 2014 – Filed January 14, 2015

AFFIRMED

Timothy G. Quinn, of Quinn & Mason, LLC, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Shawn L. Reeves, of the Law Office of Shawn L.
Reeves, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this appeal from a divorce action, Ian Hargraves Dearden
(Husband) argues the family court erred in (1) not finding his wife Georgina Anne
Dearden (Wife) in contempt of a pendente lite consent order; (2) not awarding him
alimony; (3) equitably distributing the marital estate; and (4) making a one-sided
equitable division award by granting him a container of silver cutlery while
awarding Wife several cross-stitch pieces. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the family court erred in not finding Wife in contempt of the
pendente lite consent order: Rule 14(a), SCFCR ("Except for direct contempt of
court, contempt of court proceedings shall be initiated only by a rule to show cause
duly issued and served in accordance with the provisions hereof." (emphasis
added)); Grosshuesch v. Cramer, 377 S.C. 12, 30, 659 S.E.2d 112, 121 (2008)
("[O]ur jurisprudence clearly establishes that the proper procedure to determine
whether a party should be held in contempt is to bring a summons and a rule to
show cause.").

2. As to whether the family court erred in not awarding Husband alimony:
Crossland v. Crossland, 408 S.C. 443, 451, 759 S.E.2d 419, 423 (2014) ("In
appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de
novo."); S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-130(C) (2014) (listing the factors the family court
must consider in deciding whether to award alimony); King v. King, 384 S.C. 134,
140-41, 681 S.E.2d 609, 613 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating the family court does not err
in determining whether to award alimony when its decision is based on factual
findings with evidentiary support).

3. As to whether the family court erred in its equitable distribution of the marital
estate: Crossland, 408 S.C. at 451, 759 S.E.2d at 423 ("In appeals from the family
court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); S.C. Code Ann.
§ 20-3-620(B) (2014) (listing the factors the family court must consider when
equitably apportioning a marital estate); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 393, 709
S.E.2d 650, 656 (2011) ("'The family court has broad discretion in valuing the
marital property. A family court may accept the valuation of one party over
another, and the court's valuation of marital property will be affirmed if it is within
the range of evidence presented.'" (quoting Pirri v. Pirri, 369 S.C. 258, 264, 631
S.E.2d 279, 283 (Ct. App. 2006))); 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 [c]ourt complaining of the insufficiency of the evidence to
support the family court's findings.").

4. As to whether the family court erred in awarding Husband the container of
silver cutlery and Wife the cross-stitch pieces: DiMarco v. DiMarco, 399 S.C.
295, 301, 731 S.E.2d 617, 620 (Ct. App. 2012) (stating an appellate court will
deem an issue abandoned and will not consider it if the appellant raises the
argument in his or her brief but does not support it with any authority); id.
(declining to address the appellant's argument on the merits because he "failed to
cite any case law or authority to support his argument, and therefore . . . abandoned
[it] on appeal"); Butler v. Butler, 385 S.C. 328, 343, 684 S.E.2d 191, 199 (Ct. App.
2009) (holding the appellant's issues were abandoned because he cited no statutes,
rules, or cases in support of his arguments).

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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