Scott v. Scott

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

Willie C.
Scott, Appellant,

v.

Dorothy S. Scott, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County

Robert N. Jenkins, Sr., Family Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-281

Submitted April 2, 2012 - Filed May 9,
2012

AFFIRMED

Michael F. Talley, of Greenville, for
Appellant.

Andrew G. Goodson, of Fountain Inn, and Linda
C. Hayes, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Willie C. Scott (Husband) appeals the family court's
order granting him a divorce and distributing the marital estate. On appeal,
Husband argues the family court abused its discretion in (1) awarding Dorothy
S. Scott (Wife) $49,441.29 from Husband's retirement account; (2) failing to
apportion the marital debt; and (3) failing to give Husband credit for his
money spent on Wife's Toyota Avalon and furniture in the apportionment of the
marital estate. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1. As to whether the family court
abused its discretion in awarding Wife $49,441.29
from Husband's retirement account: Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 213, 634
S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006) ("The division of marital property is in the
family court's discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that
discretion."); Deidun v.
Deidun, 362 S.C. 47, 58, 606
S.E.2d 489, 495 (Ct. App. 2004) ("On appeal, this court looks to the
overall fairness of the apportionment."); Morris
v. Morris, 335 S.C. 525, 531, 517
S.E.2d 720, 723 (Ct. App. 1999) ("The
doctrine of equitable distribution is based on a recognition that marriage is,
among other things, an economic partnership . . . . Upon dissolution of the
marriage, marital property should be divided and distributed in a manner which
fairly reflects each spouse's contribution to its acquisition, regardless of who
holds legal title." (citation and
quotation marks omitted)); S.C. Code
Ann. § 20-3-620(B) (Supp. 2011) (identifying fifteen factors for the court to
consider in equitably apportioning a marital estate).

2. As to whether the family court
abused its discretion in failing to apportion the marital debt and give
Husband credit for his money spent on Wife's Toyota Avalon and furniture: Doe
v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212, 634 S.E.2d 51, 54-55 (Ct. App. 2006) (finding the
wife failed to preserve an issue for appellate review because she did not raise
it to the family court or through a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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