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,
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Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-299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
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.").
FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and PIEPER, JJ., concur.