Rouse v. Nauful

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

LeGrand Ariail
Rouse, III, Respondent,

v.

Tara E. Nauful, Appellant.

Appeal from Richland County

Gwendlyne Y. Smalls, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-198

Submitted March 1, 2012 – Filed March 21,
2012   

AFFIRMED

Gene Trotter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Stevens Bultman Elliott, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Tara
E. Nauful (Wife) appeals the family court's order of contempt, arguing the
family court erred in (1) holding Wife in contempt for failing to provide the
name and contact information of her child's caretaker and (2) awarding $1,500
in attorney's fees to LeGrand Ariail Rouse, III. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1. As to whether the family
court erred in holding Wife in contempt: DiMarco v. DiMarco, 393 S.C.
604, 607, 713 S.E.2d 631, 633 (2011) ("A finding of contempt rests within
the sound discretion of the trial judge."); Abate v. Abate, 377
S.C. 548, 552, 660 S.E.2d 515, 518 (Ct. App. 2008) ("An appellate court
should reverse a decision regarding contempt only if it is without evidentiary
support or the trial judge has abused his discretion."). 

2. As to whether the
family court erred in awarding attorney's fees to Rouse: Davis v. Davis, 372 S.C. 64, 88, 641 S.E.2d 446, 458 (Ct. App. 2006) ("An
award of attorney's fees lies within the sound discretion of the family court
and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."); E.D.M.
v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471, 476-77, 415 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1992) (providing the
test for whether attorney's fees should be awarded); Glasscock v. Glasscock,
304 S.C. 158, 161, 403 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1991) (providing the factors to assess
whether the amount of an award of attorney's fees is reasonable).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER,
KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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