Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-171 - Mark Barton v. Amy Barton

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

Mark Barton, Respondent,

v.

Amy Barton, Appellant.


Appeal From Aiken County
Dale Moore Gable, Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-171
Submitted February 1, 2010 – Filed March 1, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Mark J. Devine, of Aiken, for Appellant.

Gregory Harlow, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Amy Barton (Wife) appeals the family court's division of marital assets and obligations.  Specifically, Wife avers the family court erred in awarding Mark Barton (Husband) 50% of the motor home's equity.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-630(A) (Supp. 2009) (defining marital property as "all real and personal property which has been acquired by the parties during the marriage and which is owned as of the date of filing or commencement of marital litigation"); S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-620(B) (Supp. 2009) (identifying the fifteen factors of equitable distribution which the family court judge must consider during the apportionment of marital property); Nasser-Moghaddassi v. Moghaddassi, 364 S.C. 182, 197, 612 S.E.2d 707, 715 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding property acquired during the marriage should be divided and distributed in a manner which fairly reflects each spouse's contribution to its acquisition, regardless of which spouse holds legal title);  Jenkins v. Jenkins, 345 S.C. 88, 98, 545 S.E.2d 531, 536 (Ct. App. 2001) (finding property bought by marital funds is subject to equitable distribution); Johnson v. Johnson, 296 S.C. 289, 300, 372 S.E.2d 107, 113 (Ct. App. 1988) ("If the end result is equitable, it is irrelevant that this [c]ourt might have weighed specific factors differently than the trial judge.").  

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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