Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-106 - Sabo v. Gaymon

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

Kathy Sabo, Appellant,

v.

Larry Gaymon, Respondent.


Appeal From Florence County
Haigh Porter, Special Referee


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-106
Submitted February 1, 2011 – Filed March 15, 2011   


AFFIRMED


Patrick J. McLaughlin, of Florence, for Appellant.

Charles J. Hupfer, Jr., of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kathy Sabo appeals the special referee's order denying her motion for attorney's fees from her brother, Larry Gaymon, arising out of a partition action.  Sabo contends the special referee erred (1) as a matter of law in finding she was not able to recover attorney's fees under Rule 71(d)(3), SCRCP, because there was no "common fund" and (2) by abusing its discretion in failing to award her attorney's fees.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Laughon v. O'Braitis, 360 S.C. 520, 529, 602 S.E.2d 108, 113 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The determination of whether to award attorney's fees in partition actions rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. The trial court may fix attorneys' fees in all partition proceedings and, as may be equitable, assess such fees against any or all of the parties in interest.") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); S&W Corp. of Inman v. Wells, 283 S.C. 218, 220, 321 S.E.2d 183, 185 (Ct. App. 1984) (holding that such a determination by the circuit court will only be overturned by an appellate court upon a showing of abuse of discretion).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., KONDUROS, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur.


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