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
George S. Zokoff, Appellant,
Marisa Lozada, Respondent.
Appeal From Greenville County
Rochelle Y. Conits, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-045
Heard January 12, 2012 – Filed January 25, 2012
Oscar W. Bannister, of Greenville, for Appellant.
Robert M. Rosenfeld, of Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Appellant George Zokoff appeals from an order of the family court denying his request for a modification of child support. On appeal, Zokoff argues the family court erred by refusing to reduce the amount of child support he was obligated to pay Respondent Marisa Lozada and by refusing to recalculate his income for child support purposes pursuant to the child support guidelines. We affirm.
1. We find the family court did not err by refusing to reduce the amount of child support Zokoff was obligated to pay because Zokoff had the means from which he could continue to satisfy his child support obligation despite his unemployment. See Miles v. Miles, 393 S.C. 111, 120, 711 S.E.2d 880, 885 (2011) (providing a family court has the authority to modify the amount of a child support award upon a showing of a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances); Calvert v. Calvert, 287 S.C. 130, 138, 336 S.E.2d 884, 888-89 (Ct. App. 1985) (holding a reduction in the salary or income of a supporting parent does not necessarily justify a reduction in child support); Miller v. Miller, 299 S.C. 307, 310-11, 384 S.E.2d 715, 717 (1989) ("A downward modification in child support based upon a decrease in the noncustodial parent's income is not warranted absent a strong showing by the party seeking the change that he is no longer in a condition to make the support payments prescribed by an earlier . . . order."); Eagerton v. Eagerton, 265 S.C. 90, 95, 217 S.E.2d 146, 148 (1975) (holding when there is sufficient property and a means to continue making the ordered payments, the supporting parent is called upon to use those assets even where his or her income declines).
2. We find the family court did not err by refusing to recalculate Zokoff's income pursuant to the child support guidelines because Zokoff failed to show a substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification of his child support obligation. See Bennett v. Rector, 389 S.C. 274, 281, 697 S.E.2d 715, 719 (Ct. App. 2010) ("Generally, the family court is required to follow the Guidelines in determining the amount of child support."); Tilghman v. Tilghman, 315 S.C. 76, 77, 431 S.E.2d 622, 623 (Ct. App. 1993) (holding child support guidelines become applicable only upon a showing of substantial change of circumstances justifying a modification of child support); Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (recognizing an appellate court need not address additional issues if the resolution of another issue is dispositive).
HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.