McBride v. McBride

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

Timothy McBride,       
Respondent,

v.

Charlene McBride       
Appellant.

Appeal From Clarendon County

R. Wright Turbeville, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-181

Submitted January 29, 2004 – Filed March
17, 2004

AFFIRMED

Paul L. Held, of Sumter, for Appellant.

William Ceth Land, of Manning, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed
pursuant to South Carolina Rules of Appellate Practice, Rule 220, and the following
authorities: As to Issue I: Dearybury v. Dearybury, 351 S.C. 278,
282, 569 S.E.2d 367, 369 (2002) (“The decision to grant or deny alimony rests
within the discretion of the family court . . . . [and] will not be disturbed
on appeal absent abuse thereof.”); see S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-130(C)(1)-(13)
(Supp. 2002) (stating the family court must consider and weigh the following
factors in making an award of alimony: 1) “duration of the marriage;”  2) physical
and emotional health of the parties; 3) “educational background” of the parties;                      
4) “employment history and earning potential” of the parties; 5) “standard of
living established during the marriage;” 6) “current and reasonably anticipated
earnings” of the parties; 7) “current and reasonably anticipated expenses” of
the parties; 8) “marital and nonmarital properties of the parties;” 9) “custody
of the children;” 10) “marital misconduct or fault;” 11) “tax consequences;”
12) prior support obligations; and 13) “other factors the court considers relevant”);
see also Allen v. Allen, 347 S.C. 177, 186, 554 S.E.2d 421, 425
(Ct. App. 2001) (“Our inquiry on appeal is not whether the family court gave
the same weight to particular factors as this court would have; rather, our
inquiry extends only to whether the family court abused its considerable discretion
in assigning weight to the applicable factors.”).

As to Issue
II: Ortowski v. Ortowski, 237 S.C. 499, 504, 117 S.E.2d 860,
862 (1961) (“In a
motion for a new trial based upon after-discovered evidence, the moving party
must show . . . [the evidence] could not have been discovered before the trial
by the exercise of due diligence . . . . Such motions are addressed to the sound
discretion of the hearing Judge and his refusal will not be interfered with
by [an appellate court] unless an abuse of discretion amounting to error of
law is shown.” (internal citations omitted));
see also S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-130(C) (stating the family
court may “give weight in such proportion as it finds appropriate” to each of
the factors outlined in section 20-3-130). 

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concurring.