McClellion v. McClellion

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

Donna S. McClellion, Appellant,

v.

W. Richard McClellion, Respondent.

Appeal From Anderson County

William J. Wylie, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-077

Submitted February 9, 2011 – Filed
February 24, 2011   

AFFIRMED

O.W. Bannister, of Greenville, for
Appellant.

J. Calhoun Pruitt, Jr., of Anderson, for
Respondent.  

PER CURIAM:  Appellant
Donna S. McClellion seeks review of an order of the family court denying her
claim for equitable distribution.  She challenges the family court's finding
that her execution of a premarital agreement with W. Richard McClellion was
voluntary.  She also challenges the family court's conclusion that she failed
to carry her burden of proving that the agreement was unfair.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR,
and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the family court erred in failing to find that Wife signed
the premarital agreement under duress:  S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-630(A)(4) (Supp. 2010) (allowing parties
contemplating marriage to determine for themselves what is excluded from the
term "marital property," as long as the parties are separately
represented by counsel and their execution of the contract is both voluntary
and prefaced by full financial disclosure); Holler v. Holler, 364 S.C. 256, 267-68, 612 S.E.2d 469, 475 (Ct.
App. 2005) (setting forth the standard for establishing that a
contract was procured through duress).       

2. As to
whether the family court erred in failing
to find that the premarital agreement was unconscionable:  Hardee v. Hardee, 355 S.C. 382, 390, 585 S.E.2d 501, 505 (2003) (defining
unconscionability); Lemaster v. Dutton, 694 So.2d 1360, 1364
(Ala. Civ. App. 1996) ("[A] court should not concern itself with the disparity in
income between parties to an antenuptial agreement in the absence of fraud,
duress, or other culpable conduct on the part of one of the parties."). 

AFFIRMED.[1]

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY,
JJ., concur.

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