Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-281 - Scott v. Scott

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

Willie C. Scott, Appellant,

v.

Dorothy S. Scott, Respondent.


Appeal From Greenville County
Robert N. Jenkins, Sr., Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-281
Submitted April 2, 2012 - Filed May 9, 2012


AFFIRMED


Michael F. Talley, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Andrew G. Goodson, of Fountain Inn, and Linda C. Hayes, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Willie C. Scott (Husband) appeals the family court's order granting him a divorce and distributing the marital estate. On appeal, Husband argues the family court abused its discretion in (1) awarding Dorothy S. Scott (Wife) $49,441.29 from Husband's retirement account; (2) failing to apportion the marital debt; and (3) failing to give Husband credit for his money spent on Wife's Toyota Avalon and furniture in the apportionment of the marital estate. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the family court abused its discretion in awarding Wife $49,441.29 from Husband's retirement account: Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 213, 634 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006) ("The division of marital property is in the family court's discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion."); Deidun v. Deidun, 362 S.C. 47, 58, 606 S.E.2d 489, 495 (Ct. App. 2004) ("On appeal, this court looks to the overall fairness of the apportionment."); Morris v. Morris, 335 S.C. 525, 531, 517 S.E.2d 720, 723 (Ct. App. 1999) ("The doctrine of equitable distribution is based on a recognition that marriage is, among other things, an economic partnership . . . . Upon dissolution of the marriage, marital property should be divided and distributed in a manner which fairly reflects each spouse's contribution to its acquisition, regardless of who holds legal title." (citation and quotation marks omitted)); S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-620(B) (Supp. 2011) (identifying fifteen factors for the court to consider in equitably apportioning a marital estate).

2. As to whether the family court abused its discretion in failing to apportion the marital debt and give Husband credit for his money spent on Wife's Toyota Avalon and furniture: Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212, 634 S.E.2d 51, 54-55 (Ct. App. 2006) (finding the wife failed to preserve an issue for appellate review because she did not raise it to the family court or through a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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