Lee v. Wall

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

Yolanda Lee, f/k/a Yolanda Wall, Respondent,

v.

Barry L. Wall, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2010-160066

Appeal From Richland County
Dorothy Mobley-Jones, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-617
Submitted October 1, 2012 – Filed November 21, 2012

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

Kathryne Ann Shelton, of Shelton Law Office, PA, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

James Howard Swick, of Swick & Hindersman, LLC, of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Barry Wall appeals the family court's order, arguing the family
court erred in awarding excessive alimony, attorney's fees, and child support to his
ex-wife Yolanda Lee, f/k/a Yolanda Wall. We affirm as modified pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. We affirm the family court's award of $800 in permanent, periodic alimony to
Lee. See Bodkin v. Bodkin, 388 S.C. 203, 215, 694 S.E.2d 230, 237 (Ct. App.
2010) (holding determinations of whether a spouse is entitled to alimony and the
amount to be awarded for alimony are within the discretion of the family court);
S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-130(C) (2011) (requiring the family court to consider the
following factors in determining whether to award 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 children; (10) marital misconduct or fault; (11) tax
consequences; and (12) prior support obligations; as well as (13) other factors the
court considers relevant).

2. We affirm the family court's award of partial attorney's fees to Lee. See Lewis v.
Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 392, 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011) ("The decision of whether to
award . . . attorney['s] fees, rests in the sound discretion of the family court.");
Bennett v. Rector, 389 S.C. 274, 284, 697 S.E.2d 715, 720-21 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In
deciding whether to award attorney's fees, the family court should consider (1)
each party's ability to pay his or her own fees; (2) the beneficial results obtained by
the attorney; (3) the parties' respective financial conditions; and (4) the effect of the
fees on each party's standard of living."); id. at 284-85, 697 S.E.2d at 721 ("In
determining reasonable attorney's fees, the six factors the family court should
consider are (1) the nature, extent, and difficulty of the case; (2) the time
necessarily devoted to the case; (3) professional standing of counsel; (4)
contingency of compensation; (5) beneficial results obtained; [and] (6) customary
legal fees for similar services.").

3. We modify the family court's award of child support from $452 to $203 per
month. We find the family court failed to consider the alimony awarded to Lee as
part of her gross income. S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 114-4720(A)(2) (1997) (providing
gross income includes "alimony which a party receives as a result of the current
litigation"). Accordingly, we hold Wall should be credited for $7,968 in excess
child support he has paid since April 1, 2010 to November 1, 2012.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.1

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
SHORT, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.