Brummitt v. Brummitt

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

Randall W.
Brummitt, Appellant,

v.

Patricia L.
Brummitt, Respondent.

Appeal From Sumter County

Wayne M. Creech, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-299

Heard May 19, 2010 – Filed June 2, 2010

AFFIRMED

Michael M. Jordan, of Sumter, for Appellant.

Richard T. Jones, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM: Randall
Brummitt (Husband) appeals from an order of the family court increasing his
alimony obligation, finding him in contempt, and awarding Patricia Brummitt
(Wife) attorney's fees and costs.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR,
and the following authorities:

1. Regarding the family
court's refusal to reduce or terminate Husband's alimony, we find evidence in
the record supporting the family court's decision to increase alimony, and
therefore, the family court did not abuse its discretion.  See  Eubank
v. Eubank, 347 S.C. 367, 372, 555 S.E.2d 413, 415 (Ct. App. 2001)
(explaining that a family court's decision regarding the modification of
alimony will not be disturbed on review absent an abuse of discretion);  Clark
v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389, 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("An abuse
of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law
or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary
support.").

2. Regarding the contempt,
we find no abuse of discretion where evidence in the record reflects Husband
willfully violated the family court's previous order.  See S.C. Code
Ann. § 63-3-620 (2010) ("An adult who wilfully violates, neglects, or
refuses to obey or perform a lawful order of the court . . . may be proceeded
against for contempt of court.");  Bartlett v. Rachels, 375 S.C.
348, 353, 652 S.E.2d 432, 435 (Ct. App. 2007) (explaining that a family court's
decision regarding contempt will be reversed only if the family court abused
its discretion).

3. Regarding the award
of attorney's fees, Husband hinged his argument on his inferior financial
condition and his anticipated success in this appeal.  Because the appeal was
not successful and ample evidence in the record indicates Husband's ability to
pay the fees exceeds that of his disabled ex-wife, the family court did not
abuse its discretion.  Dickert v. Dickert, 387 S.C. 1, __, 691 S.E.2d
448, 452-53 (2010) ("Whether to award attorney's fees is a matter within
the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal
absent an abuse of discretion.").

AFFIRMED.

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