Clark v. Martin

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

Jessica Clark, Respondent,

   v.

Michael Martin, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

Georgia V. Anderson, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.   2011-UP-126

Submitted February 1, 2011 – Filed March
28, 2011

AFFIRMED

Michael Martin, of Springfield, Illinois, pro se.

Daniel D. D'Agostino, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Michael Martin (Father) appeals the
family court's order modifying child support.  Martin argues the family court
erred in (1) granting a tax dependency exemption to Jessica Clark (Mother) and
requiring him to share in the uncovered medical expenses for their minor child
and (2) awarding attorney's fees to Mother.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1. As
to whether the family court erred in granting
a tax dependency exemption to Mother and requiring Father to share in the
uncovered medical expenses for their minor child: Hudson v. Hudson, 340
S.C. 198, 204, 207, 530 S.E.2d 400, 403-05 (Ct. App. 2000) (stating the
allocation of a dependent tax exemption is within the family court's discretion
and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion); id. at 207, 530
S.E.2d at 405 (holding the family court may transfer the benefit of the
dependent tax exemption upon a sufficient showing of a change of circumstances); Upchurch v. Upchurch, 367 S.C. 16, 26, 624 S.E.2d 643, 647 (2006)
("A child support award rests in the discretion of the [family court], and
will not be altered on appeal absent abuse of discretion."); Id. at
26, 624 S.E.2d at 647-48 ("The family court may always modify child support
upon a proper showing of a change in either the child's needs or the supporting
parent's financial ability."); Campbell v. McPherson, 268 S.C. 444,
448, 234 S.E.2d 774, 775 (1977) ("[T]he increased cost of living, as well
as the increased cost of maintaining the child, now of high school age,
requires a greater contribution from [Father], whose earning capacity has risen
significantly."); see also Rule 220(c), SCACR ("The appellate
court may affirm any ruling, order, decision or judgment upon any ground(s) appearing
in the Record on Appeal.").                        

2.  As to
whether the family court erred in awarding attorney's fees to Mother: Patel
v. Patel, 359 S.C. 515, 533, 599 S.E.2d 114, 123 (2004) ("An award of
attorney's fees rests within the sound discretion of the [family court] and
should not be disturbed on appeal unless there is an abuse of discretion.").   
  

AFFIRMED.

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

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