Suttles v. Salam

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

Cynthia Suttles, Respondent,

v.

Brahim Salam, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

Rochelle Y. Conits, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-296  

Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 14,
2011

AFFIRMED

Brahim Salam, pro se, of Mauldin, for
Appellant.

Cynthia Suttles, pro se, of Greenville,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Brahim
Salam appeals the family court order requiring Salam to pay Cynthia Suttles
$1,000 per month in permanent, periodic alimony and $5,315.13 in attorney's fees.  Salam argues the family court erred in (1) failing
to consider Salam's two dependents, length of the marriage, the educational
background of both parties, and the health of both parties in the determination
of the proper amount of alimony; and (2) failing to consider Salam's own legal
fees and his obligation to his dependents in awarding attorney's fees.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities: 

1.  As to
whether the family court erred in awarding alimony: Bodkin v. Bodkin, 388 S.C. 203, 215, 694 S.E.2d 230, 237 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The
amount to be awarded for alimony, as well as a determination of whether a
spouse is entitled to alimony, is within the sound discretion of the family
court.  An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is controlled by an
error of law or is based on factual findings without evidentiary support.")
(citations omitted); S.C. Code Ann. § 20‑3‑130(C) (Supp. 2010)
("In making an award of alimony or separate maintenance and support, the court
must consider and give weight in such proportion as it finds appropriate to all
of the following factors: (1) the duration of the marriage together with the
ages of the parties at the time of the marriage and at the time of the divorce
or separate maintenance action between the parties; (2)
the physical and emotional condition of each spouse; (3)
the educational background of each spouse, together with need of each spouse
for additional training or education in order to achieve that spouse's income
potential; (4)
the employment history and earning potential of each spouse; (5)
the standard of living established during the marriage; (6)
the current and reasonably anticipated earnings of both spouses; (7)
the current and reasonably anticipated expenses and needs of both spouses; (8)
the marital and nonmarital properties of the parties, including those
apportioned to him or her in the divorce or separate maintenance action; (9)
custody of the children, particularly where conditions or circumstances render it
appropriate that the custodian not be required to seek employment outside the
home, or where the employment must be of a limited nature; (10)
marital misconduct or fault of either or both parties, whether or not used as a
basis for a divorce or separate maintenance decree if the misconduct affects or
has affected the economic circumstances of the parties, or contributed to the
breakup of the marriage, except that no evidence of personal conduct which may
otherwise be relevant and material for the purpose of this subsection may be
considered with regard to this subsection if the conduct took place subsequent
to the happening of the earliest of (a) the formal signing of a written
property or marital settlement agreement or (b) entry of a permanent order of separate
maintenance and support or of a permanent order approving a property or marital
settlement agreement between the parties; (11)
the tax consequences to each party as a result of the particular form of
support awarded; (12)
the existence and extent of any support obligation from a prior marriage or for
any other reason of either party; and (13)
such other factors the court considers relevant.").  

2.  As to whether the family
court erred in awarding attorney's fees: Bennett v. Rector, 389 S.C.
274, 284, 697 S.E.2d 715, 720 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The family court has
discretion in deciding whether to award attorney's fees, and its decision will
not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.  An abuse of discretion occurs
when the decision is controlled by an error of law or is based on factual
findings lacking evidentiary support.") (citation omitted); E.D.M. v.
T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471, 476-77, 415 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1992) ("In
determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors
should be considered: (1) the party's ability to pay his/her own attorney's fee;
(2) beneficial results obtained by the attorney; (3) the parties'
respective financial conditions; (4) effect of the attorney's
fee on each party's standard of living.").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, KONDUROS, and
GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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