Pelletier v. Pelletier, 2014-UP-030
Decision Date | 22 January 2014 |
Docket Number | 2014-UP-030 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Michele M. Pelletier, Respondent, v. Mark G. Pelletier, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2011-197826 |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Heard November 13, 2013.
Appeal From Richland County Anne Gué Jones, Family Court Judge
Howard S. Sheftman, of Finkel Law Firm, and Emma I. Bryson, of Bryson Law Office, LLC, both of Columbia, for Appellant.
Thomas M. Neal, III, of Law Offices of Thomas M. Neal, III, and Yulee E. Harrelson, both of Columbia, for Respondent.
This appeal arises from the family court's final order of divorce. On appeal, Appellant Mark Pelletier (Husband) argues the family court erred by: (1)transmuting Husband's nonmarital assets; (2) valuing Husband's dental office building; (3) equitably dividing marital property; and (4) awarding attorney's fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
1. We find the family court did not abuse its discretion in determining the dental practice, dental office building, and lake lot were transmuted into marital property. The evidence in the record supports a finding that during the marriage the parties intended to treat the disputed property as marital property. See Myers v. Myers, 391 S.C. 308 313, 705 S.E.2d 86, 89 (Ct. App. 2011) (); S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-630(A) (Supp 2012) ( ); Fitzwater v. Fitzwater, 396 S.C. 361, 367, 721 S.E.2d 7, 10 (Ct. App. 2011) ( ); Johnson v Johnson, 296 S.C. 289, 295, 372 S.E.2d 107, 110 (Ct App. 1988) (); id. at 295, 372 S.E.2d at 110-11 (); Pittman v. Pittman, Op. No. 27352 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Jan. 15, 2014) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 2 at 93) (parties during their retirement) the husband's land survey business was transmuted, relying in part on the husband paying the wife a high salary and contributing to the wife's retirement account with the expectation that it would benefit both .
2. As to whether the family court erred by valuing the dental office building at $1, 363, 455 based upon the testimony of court-appointed appraiser Calhoun Kennedy, we find no abuse of discretion because the family court's valuation of the dental office building was within the range of values testified to at trial. See Skipper v. Skipper, 290 S.C. 412, 414, 351 S.E.2d 153, 154 (1986) ( ); Pirri v. Pirri, 369 S.C. 258, 264, 631 S.E.2d 279, 283 (Ct. App. 2006) ( ); Fuller v. Fuller, 370 S.C. 538, 546-47, 636 S.E.2d 636, 641 (Ct. App. 2006) ( ); Smith v. Smith, 294 S.C. 194, 198, 363 S.E.2d 404, 407 (Ct. App. 1987) ().
3. As to whether the family court erred in equitably dividing marital property, we find no abuse of discretion because the family court properly considered the relevant statutory factors and the apportionment was both fair and equitable. See Pruitt v. Pruitt, 389 S.C. 250, 269, 697 S.E.2d 702, 713 (Ct. App. 2010) (); S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-620(B) (Supp 2012) ( ); Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 213-14, 634 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006) ("On appeal, this court looks to the overall fairness of the apportionment, and it is irrelevant that this court might have weighed specific factors differently than the family court."). Additionally, the family court did not err by making findings concerning Husband's character, conduct, and testimony at trial. The family court was entitled to make credibility findings, and the findings are supported by the record. See Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 392, 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011) ; Gandy v. Gandy, 297 S.C. 411, 414, 377 S.E.2d 312, 313-14 (1989) ("Custody is based on a determination of the character, fitness, attitude and inclinations on the part of each parent."). Further, regarding whether the family court erred by...
To continue reading
Request your trial