Askins-Weaver v. Weaver, 2020-UP-124

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
PartiesRebecca L. Askins-Weaver, Respondent, v. Jeffrey R. Weaver, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2017-002511
Decision Date06 May 2020
Docket Number2020-UP-124

Rebecca L. Askins-Weaver, Respondent,
v.

Jeffrey R. Weaver, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-002511

No. 2020-UP-124

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

May 6, 2020


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.

Submitted April 1, 2020

Appeal From Darlington County Salley Huggins McIntyre, Family Court Judge

John D. Elliott, of the Law Offices of John D. Elliott P.A., of Columbia, and Kevin Mitchell Barth, of Barth, Ballenger & Lewis, LLP, of Florence, both for Appellant.

James H. Lucas, of Lucas Warr & White, of Hartsville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey R. Weaver (Husband) appeals the family court's final order, arguing the family court erred by (1) awarding fifty percent of his military retirement to Rebecca L. Askins-Weaver (Wife) and assigning him 100% of the debt for an airplane; (2) relying on inadmissible expert testimony to make its equitable apportionment of the marital estate; and (3) ordering him to pay attorney's fees and expert fees. Husband also argues he was prejudiced by the family court's failure to issue its final order within thirty days of trial, as required by Rule 26(c), SCRFC. We affirm.

1. As to whether the family court erred by awarding fifty percent of Husband's military retirement to Wife and 100% of the airplane debt to Husband, we find no error because the record shows the overall apportionment of the marital estate was equitable and fair. See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593, 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ."); Brown v. Brown, 412 S.C. 225, 235, 771 S.E.2d 649, 654 (Ct. App. 2015) ("In reviewing a division of marital property, an appellate court looks to the overall fairness of the apportionment."); S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-620(B) (Supp. 2019) (providing fifteen factors the family court must weigh when apportioning a marital estate). The total value of the marital estate, including all marital assets and debts, was $1, 587, 189.27. The family court divided the marital estate equally between Husband and Wife such that they each received a net award of $793, 594.64. Because the family court accounted for both the assets and debts when apportioning the marital estate, and the overall apportionment of fifty percent of the marital estate to each spouse is fair, we find the family court did not err. See Wilburn v. Wilburn, 403 S.C. 372, 390, 743 S.E.2d 734, 744 (2013) ("On appeal, we must review the fairness of the overall apportionment, and if equitable, we will uphold it regardless of whether we would have weighed specific factors differently.").

2. As to whether the family court erred by relying on inadmissible expert testimony to award fifty percent of Husband's retirement to Wife, we find no error because Husband failed to show the family court relied on the arguably inadmissible testimony to apportion the marital estate. See Brown v. Allstate Ins. Co., 344 S.C. 21, 25, 542...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT