Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-478 - Walker v. Walker

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

Sabrina E. Walker, Respondent,

v.

Kenneth A. Walker, Appellant.


Appeal From Greenville County
Rochelle W. Conits, Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-478
Submitted November 1, 2010 – Filed November 1, 2010


AFFIRMED


O.W. Bannister, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Michael J. Anzelmo, of Columbia; Megan Griffith Sandefur, of Myrtle Beach; and Richard N. Tapp, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In this domestic action, Kenneth A. Walker (Husband) appeals the family court's order awarding Sabrina E. Walker (Wife) $5,000 in alimony and $15,000 in 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 Wife $5,000 in alimony: S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-130(C) (Supp. 2009) (identifying the factors the family court must consider in awarding alimony); Browder v. Browder, 382 S.C. 512, 518-19, 675 S.E.2d 820, 823 (Ct. App. 2009) ("An award of alimony rests within the sound discretion of the family court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.  An abuse of discretion occurs if the court's ruling is controlled by an error of law or if the ruling is based upon findings of fact that are without evidentiary support.") (internal citations omitted).

2.   As to whether the family court erred in awarding Wife $15,000 in attorney's fees: S.C. Code Ann. § 63-3-530(A)(38) (2010) ("Suit money, including attorney's fees, may be assessed for or against a party to an action brought in or subject to the jurisdiction of the family court."); 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) ("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; and (4) effect of the attorney's fee on each party's standard of living."); Glasscock v. Glasscock, 304 S.C. 158, 161, 403 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1991) ("[T]he six factors . . . in determining a reasonable attorney's fee:  (1) the nature, extent, and difficulty of the case; (2) the time necessarily devoted to the case; (3) professional standing of counsel; (4) contingency of compensation; (5) beneficial results obtained; [and] (6) customary legal fees for similar services.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., SHORT and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.


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