Kearns v. Odom
Decision Date | 11 May 2022 |
Docket Number | 2022-UP-191,Appellate Case 2019-001862 |
Parties | Timothy Paul Kearns, Appellant, v. Falon Elise Odom, Respondent. |
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.
Submitted March 1, 2022
Appeal From Greenville County Thomas T. Hodges, Family Court Judge
J Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Appellant.
Travis Verne Olmert, of Carter Smith Merriam Rogers & Traxler PA, of Greenville, for Respondent.
Milford Oliver Howard, III, of Howard Law Firm, P.A., of Greenville, as Guardian ad Litem.
Timothy Paul Kearns (Father) appeals the family court's order denying his request for a modification of custody of his minor son (Child). On appeal, Father argues the family court erred by (1) finding there was no change in circumstances to support a modification of custody and (2) ordering Father to pay a portion of Falon Elise Odom's (Mother's) attorney's fees and costs. We affirm.
1. We hold the family court properly denied Father's request for a modification of custody because Father failed to prove there had been a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of Child such that a change in custody would be in the best interest of Child. See Stone v. Thompson, 428 S.C. 79, 91, 833 S.E.2d 266, 272 (2019) ("Appellate courts review family court matters de novo, with the exceptions of evidentiary and procedural rulings."); Clark v. Clark, 430 S.C. 167, 175-76, 843 S.E.2d 498, 502 (2020) ; Dixon v. Dixon, 336 S.C. 260, 263, 519 S.E.2d 357, 359 (Ct. App. 1999) (); Hollar v. Hollar, 342 S.C. 463, 473, 536 S.E.2d 883, 888 (Ct. App. 2000) (); Latimer v. Farmer, 360 S.C. 375, 381, 602 S.E.2d 32, 35 (2004) ().
2. We hold the family court did not err by ordering Father to pay $18, 000 of Mother's attorney's fees and costs because the family court's final order shows the court properly considered the E.D.M.[1] and Glasscock[2] factors. See Dickert v. Dickert 387 S.C. 1, 10-11, 691 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2010) ( ); see also Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510, 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) (); E.D.M., 307 S.C. at 476-77, 415 S.E.2d at 816 (); Glasscock, 304 S.C. at 161, 403 S.E.2d at 315 (court should consider the following factors to determine the amount of an award of attorney's fees: "(1) the nature, extent, and difficulty of the case; (2) the time necessarily devoted to the case; (3) the family ...
To continue reading
Request your trial