Collins v. Collins
Decision Date | 07 April 2021 |
Docket Number | 2021-UP-110 |
Parties | Stephanie Collins, Respondent. v. Gary Collins, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2018-000252 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
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.
Heard October 13, 2020.
Appeal From Anderson County David E. Phillips, Family Court Judge
James Calhoun Pruitt, Jr. and Joshua Brent Raffini, both of Pruitt & Pruitt, of Anderson, for Appellant.
Samuel C. Weldon, of Greenville, for Respondent.
In this divorce action, Gary Collins (Husband) argues the family court erred in (1) assigning a value to real property that was outside of the range of competent testimony presented at trial and (2) ordering a lump sum payment that in effect required him to sell assets. Additionally, he asserts the attorney's fees awarded to Stephanie Collins (Wife) should be reviewed in light of any changes made on appeal. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the family court erred in assigning a value to real property that Husband contends was outside of the range of competent testimony presented at trial: Lewis v Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386, 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011) (the appellate court reviews decisions of the family court de novo) ; id. at 385, 391, 709 S.E.2d at 651-52, 655 ( ); id. at 388-89 709 S.E.2d at 653-54 ( ); Toler v. Toler, 292 S.C. 374, 378, 356 S.E.2d 429, 432 (Ct. App. 1987) (); Roe v. Roe, 311 S.C 471, 478, 429 S.E.2d 830, 835 (Ct. App. 1993) (); Abercrombie v. Abercrombie, 372 S.C. 643, 647, 643 S.E.2d 697, 699 (Ct. App. 2007) (); Fields v. Fields, 342 S.C. 182, 190, 536 S.E.2d 684, 688 (Ct. App. 2000) (); Pirri v. Pirri, 369 S.C. 258 264, 631 S.E.2d 279, 283 (Ct. App. 2006) ; Lewis, 392 S.C. at 393, 709 S.E.2d at 656 ; Teeter v. Teeter, 408 S.C. 485, 497, 759 S.E.2d 144, 150 (Ct. App. 2014) ( .
2. As to whether the family court erred in ordering a lump sum payment that Husband contends in effect required him to sell assets: Clark v. Clark, 430 S.C. 167, 176, 843 S.E.2d 498, 503 (2020) ; id. at 176-77, 843 S.E.2d at 503 (providing our supreme court "value[s] flexibility in how the...
To continue reading
Request your trial