Angela Holloman v. Enoch Walters

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

Angela Holloman, Respondent,

v.

Enoch Walters, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2022-000771

Appeal From Richland County
Rosalyn Frierson-Smith, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-309
Submitted March 2, 2026 – Filed June 24, 2026

AFFIRMED

J. Falkner Wilkes, of Oakland, Mississippi, for
Appellant.

Yulee E. Harrelson; and J. Michael Taylor, of
Taylor/Potterfield, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Enoch Walters (Father) appeals the family court's order
modifying child support and granting attorney's fees to Angela Holloman (Mother).
On appeal, Father argues the family court erred in its child support calculation by
failing to properly deduct his business expenses from his gross income. We affirm.
FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Father and Mother were divorced in 2012. Prior to their divorce, the parties signed
a marital settlement agreement in which Mother received custody of the parties'
three children and Father agreed to pay child support.

Mother filed the subject action seeking modification of child support in 2022, and
the family court issued a temporary order. The family court found there was a
substantial and material change in circumstances, and it raised Father's child
support obligation. The family court also ordered Father to provide Mother's
counsel with several financial documents for the years 2020–2022 and ordered the
parties to mediation.

In an order on Mother's subsequent rule to show cause, the family court found
Father in arrearage in his child support obligation and that he failed to provide
some of the financial documents as previously ordered by the court. Mother then
filed a motion for expedited hearing on motion to compel mediation, production of
documents, and to extend the 365-day rule with the family court in March 2023.
The family court ordered Father to attend mediation and further instructed him to
provide "his actual monthly bank statements" from December 2022 through May
2023.

Father filed a motion for emergency hearing and motion to dismiss in May 2023,
seeking a stay of proceedings primarily because he believed the family court did
not have jurisdiction in the case. Following a hearing, the family court denied his
request for an emergency hearing and found it had jurisdiction.
The case proceeded to trial on the merits in April 2024, and the family court
announced its ruling during a hearing in May 2024. The family court issued a final
order modifying child support and awarding attorney's fees to Mother in June
2024. This appeal followed.

ISSUES ON APPEAL

I. Did the family court err in its calculation of child support?

II. Did the family court fail to properly calculate Appellant's business income?

III. Did the family court err in failing to include Appellant's business expenses in
its calculation of Appellant's income from self-employment?
STANDARD OF REVIEW

"In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de
novo." Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011).
Therefore, "this [c]ourt may find facts in accordance with its own view of the
preponderance of the evidence." Posner v. Posner, 383 S.C. 26, 31, 677 S.E.2d
616, 619 (Ct. App. 2009). "However, this broad scope of review does not require
this [c]ourt to disregard the findings of the family court." Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C.
381, 384, 709 S.E.2d 650, 651 (2011) (quoting Eason v. Eason, 384 S.C. 473, 479,
682 S.E.2d 804, 807 (2009)). Appellate courts must recognize that the family
court was better positioned to evaluate witnesses' credibility and weigh their
testimony. Posner, 383 S.C. at 31, 677 S.E.2d at 619. However, de novo review
"does not relieve an appellant from demonstrating error in the [family] court's
findings of fact." Lewis, 392 S.C. at 385, 709 S.E.2d at 652.

LAW/ANALYSIS
I. Child Support Calculation1

Father argues Mother presented evidence at trial that "grossly over-stated" his
gross income and on which the family court improperly relied. He contends
Mother's analyses of his 2022 and 2023 gross income failed to include all business
expenses for those years, particularly expenses related to Zillow. Father argues the
family court failed to consider the remaining evidence in the record and thus did
not properly deduct his business expenses from his gross income in the court's
child support calculation.
"Child support awards are within the sound discretion of the trial judge and, absent
an abuse of discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal." Spreeuw v. Barker, 385
S.C. 45, 65, 682 S.E.2d 843, 853 (Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Mitchell v. Mitchell,
283 S.C. 87, 92, 320 S.E.2d 706, 710 (1984)). "An abuse of discretion occurs
when the court's decision is controlled by some error of law or where the order,
based upon the findings of fact, is without evidentiary support." Id. "Ordinarily,
the family court determines income based upon the financial declarations
submitted by the parties." Id. "However, where the amounts reflected on the
financial declaration are at issue, the court may rely on suitable documentation to

1
While Father lists three separate questions in his statement of issues, his argument
focuses on the singular question of whether the family court erred in calculating
child support by failing to properly deduct his business expenses from his gross
income. As such we have combined his issues on appeal.
verify income, such as pay stubs, receipts, or expenses covering at least one
month." Id.
In determining a child support award, "[g]ross income includes income from any
source . . . ." S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 114-4720(A)(2) (Supp. 2025). However,
"[f]or income from self-employment . . . gross income is defined as gross receipts
minus ordinary and necessary expenses required for self-employment or business
operation . . . ." 114-4720(A)(4).
We hold the family court did not err in its calculation of child support. See
Spreeuw, 385 S.C. at 65, 682 S.E.2d at 853 ("Child support awards are within the
sound discretion of the trial judge and, absent an abuse of discretion, will not be
disturbed on appeal." (quoting Mitchell, 283 S.C. at 92, 320 S.E.2d at 710)); id.
("An abuse of discretion occurs when the court's decision is controlled by some
error of law or where the order, based upon the findings of fact, is without
evidentiary support."). As to business expenses, the only meaningful evidence of
Zillow charges in the record is found in the Sam's Club Mastercard payment
records. While these records reflect several Zillow payments, the payments stop
after September 24, 2022, and the records only go through October 2022. Father's
Southern First Bank statements from October 2022 through 2023 reflect several
large Sam's Club Mastercard payments; however, there are no Sam's Club
Mastercard records for these months, nor is there any other evidence in the record
of what these payments were for aside from Father's testimony that all Sam's Club
Mastercard charges were "for business purposes only." Father provided no
meaningful evidence of business expenses past September 2022, and as such, we
find the family court properly relied on Mother's analyses of Father's bank
statements as well as the bank statements themselves in determining his gross
income for 2022 and 2023. See Brantley v. Brantley, 441 S.C. 284, 296, 893
S.E.2d 349, 355 (Ct. App. 2023) ("Father at no time substantiates his arguments [as
to the categorization of certain expenses in child support calculation] with
sufficient documentation demonstrating obvious error on part of either the family
court or [the expert witness]. Therefore, Father's arguments fail due to his inability
to supply the court with any meaningful representation of his income."). Further,
while Father testified the Sam's Club Mastercard payments were for business
expenses, the family court found Father was not credible, and Father failed to
present any other witness testimony on his behalf. See id. at 294–95, 893 S.E.2d at
355 (noting that when the amounts in a financial declaration are at issue, "the
family court [is] required to determine . . . what available information and
documentation [is] credible in an attempt to verify income" (emphasis added)).
Therefore, we hold the family court did not err.2
II. Attorney's Fees

Father argues that because the family court improperly calculated his gross
income, its attorney's fees calculation was improper. He also contends the
attorney's fees should be adjusted if the beneficial results were to change on
appeal. Because we hold the family court properly calculated Father's gross
income and child support, we affirm the family court's award of attorney's fees.
See Weller v. Weller, 434 S.C. 530, 543, 863 S.E.2d 835, 841–42 (Ct. App. 2021)
(affirming the family court's award of attorney's fees when affirming the other
findings challenged on appeal).

Based on the foregoing, the order of the family court is

AFFIRMED.3

WILLIAMS, C.J., and KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., concur.

2
Father included an endnote to his appellate brief containing a summary of his
Sam's Club Mastercard payments reflected in his bank statements for both 2022
and 2023. We find this is neither proper nor preserved because Father never
presented this summary to the family court. See Rule 210(c), SCRCP ("The
Record shall not, however, include matter which was not presented to the lower
court or tribunal."); Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733
(1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal,
but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for
appellate review."). Regardless, this endnote merely restates Sam's Club
Mastercard payments reflected in the bank statements and as explained above, we
do not find this constitutes meaningful evidence.
3
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.