Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-126 - Clark v. Martin

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

Jessica Clark, Respondent,

   v.

Michael Martin, Appellant.


Appeal From York County
Georgia V. Anderson, Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.   2011-UP-126
Submitted February 1, 2011 – Filed March 28, 2011


AFFIRMED


Michael Martin, of Springfield, Illinois, pro se.

Daniel D. D'Agostino, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Michael Martin (Father) appeals the family court's order modifying child support.  Martin argues the family court erred in (1) granting a tax dependency exemption to Jessica Clark (Mother) and requiring him to share in the uncovered medical expenses for their minor child and (2) awarding attorney's fees to Mother.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the family court erred in granting a tax dependency exemption to Mother and requiring Father to share in the uncovered medical expenses for their minor child: Hudson v. Hudson, 340 S.C. 198, 204, 207, 530 S.E.2d 400, 403-05 (Ct. App. 2000) (stating the allocation of a dependent tax exemption is within the family court's discretion and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion); id. at 207, 530 S.E.2d at 405 (holding the family court may transfer the benefit of the dependent tax exemption upon a sufficient showing of a change of circumstances); Upchurch v. Upchurch, 367 S.C. 16, 26, 624 S.E.2d 643, 647 (2006) ("A child support award rests in the discretion of the [family court], and will not be altered on appeal absent abuse of discretion."); Id. at 26, 624 S.E.2d at 647-48 ("The family court may always modify child support upon a proper showing of a change in either the child's needs or the supporting parent's financial ability."); Campbell v. McPherson, 268 S.C. 444, 448, 234 S.E.2d 774, 775 (1977) ("[T]he increased cost of living, as well as the increased cost of maintaining the child, now of high school age, requires a greater contribution from [Father], whose earning capacity has risen significantly."); see also Rule 220(c), SCACR ("The appellate court may affirm any ruling, order, decision or judgment upon any ground(s) appearing in the Record on Appeal.").                        

2.  As to whether the family court erred in awarding attorney's fees to Mother: Patel v. Patel, 359 S.C. 515, 533, 599 S.E.2d 114, 123 (2004) ("An award of attorney's fees rests within the sound discretion of the [family court] and should not be disturbed on appeal unless there is an abuse of discretion.").      

AFFIRMED.

 FEW, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


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