Middleton v. Middleton

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT
SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS
PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

William K.
Middleton, Appellant,

v.

Julie A. Middleton, Respondent.

Appeal From Anderson County

 Timothy M. Cain, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-009

Submitted December 1, 2007 – Filed January
4, 2008

AFFIRMED

W. Patrick Yon, of Anderson, for Appellant.

Hugh W. Welborn, of Anderson, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
William Middleton appeals from the family court’s order denying his request to
reduce his child support and alimony obligations, finding him in willful
contempt for failing to make court-ordered child support and alimony payments,
and requiring him to pay Julie Middleton’s attorneys’ fees.  We affirm pursuant
to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Hopkins v. Hopkins, 343 S.C. 301, 305, 540 S.E.2d 454, 456 (2000) (noting the
question of child support is largely within the discretion of the trial judge
whose decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is
shown); Calvert v. Calvert, 287 S.C. 130, 138, 336 S.E.2d 884, 888-89
(Ct. App. 1985) (“The mere fact that a supporting spouse’s salary or income has
been reduced does not of itself require a reduction of either alimony or child
support.”); S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1350 (Supp. 2006) (“An adult who willfully
violates, neglects, or refuses to obey or perform a lawful order of the court .
. . may be proceeded against for contempt of court.”); Brandt v. Gooding, 368 S.C. 618, 627, 630
S.E.2d 259, 263 (2006) (stating that a decision regarding contempt should be
reversed on appeal only if no evidence supports it or the trial court has
abused its discretion); Browning v.
Browning, 366 S.C. 255, 263, 621
S.E.2d 389, 393 (Ct. App. 2005) (“An abuse of discretion occurs either when the court is controlled by some error of law or where the order, based
upon findings of fact, lacks evidentiary support.”); Donahue v. Donahue,
299 S.C. 353, 365, 384 S.E.2d 741, 748 (1989) (“An award of attorney’s fees and
costs is a discretionary matter not to be overturned absent abuse by the trial
court.”); Singleton v. Collins, 251 S.C. 208, 210-11, 161 S.E.2d
246, 247 (1968) (“An attorney has a right to be paid for professional services
rendered, and where there is no express contract, the law will imply
one. . . . Whether the services were rendered, and their value, are matters
of fact to be decided . . . by the court below, and no appeal lies therefrom if
the findings of fact are supported by any competent evidence.”).

For
the foregoing reasons, the family court’s order is

AFFIRMED.[1]

HEARN, C.J., and KITTREDGE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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