Robinson v. Tyson, No. 2373

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM; CURETON
• Citation: 461 S.E.2d 397,319 S.C. 360
• Parties: Virginia S. ROBINSON, Respondent, v. William Brooks TYSON, III, Appellant. . Heard
• Docket Number: No. 2373
• Decision Date: 07 June 1995

Page 397

461 S.E.2d 397 319 S.C. 360 Virginia S. ROBINSON, Respondent,
v.
William Brooks TYSON, III, Appellant. No. 2373. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard June 7, 1995.
Decided July 3, 1995.
Amended and Refiled on Denial of Rehearing Aug. 11, 1995.

Page 398

[319 S.C. 361] Mary Layton Wells, of Scott & Roberts, Florence, for appellant.

Joseph W. McGowan, III, Laurens, for respondent.

ORDER TO WITHDRAW ORIGINAL OPINION AND TO SUBSTITUTE OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The previous Opinion in the above referenced case, filed July 3, 1995, is hereby withdrawn and the Amended Opinion is substituted and attached hereto.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CURETON, Judge:

Virginia S. Robinson (the mother) brought this action against William Brooks Tyson, III (the father) seeking an increase in child support, and the dependent income tax deduction for the parties' daughter. The family court awarded an increase in child support based on income imputed to the father, finding him voluntarily under employed. The court also awarded the mother the state and federal income tax deduction for the parties' daughter and $1,500 in attorney fees. The father appeals. We affirm.

The parties were divorced on March 16, 1984. The parties entered into a settlement agreement which the family court "made a part and parcel" of its order. The mother received custody of the parties' two children. The court ordered the father to pay child support of $300 per month until he became [319 S.C. 362] gainfully employed, at which time he was ordered to notify the court, and the court would increase his child support to $375 per month. The mother agreed not to seek an increase in support for one year. The court granted the father the dependent income tax deduction for the daughter and the wife the deduction for the son.

In July, 1984, the father petitioned the family court to reduce his child support obligation because he was still unemployed. The court ordered his obligation reduced to $200 per month until he became gainfully employed. The court further ordered that once he was employed, his support obligation automatically reverted back to $375 per month. The father paid $200 per month for ten years. During this ten year period, he remarried, graduated from law school, passed the South Carolina bar examination, and practiced law with his father in Florence, South Carolina for two years before the mother initiated this action. At trial, the father testified his sole income was $700 per month. He presented no evidence of efforts to locate more remunerative employment nor did he have an idea of his possible earning potential. He further testified his wife was presently unemployed, and he often borrowed money from his father to live.

The mother introduced the deposition testimony of an attorney, who stated he recently hired two attorneys in the Florence area at a starting salary of $35,000 per year. He further stated he had hired paralegals with starting salaries of around $18,000 per year. Evidence was presented that the University of South Carolina Law School placement office reported the lowest starting salary for new attorneys in the Florence area was about $25,000 per year. Some eleven years prior to the court hearing and before the father returned to law school, he earned approximately $17,000 per year. The court imputed to the father an income of $30,000 per year, and ordered child support of $522.06 per month based on that imputed income as required by the Child Support Guidelines.

In an action on appeal from the family court, this court has jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with our view of the

Page 399

preponderance of the evidence. Epperly v. Epperly, 312 S.C. 411, 440 S.E.2d 884 (1994). This broad scope of review does not require us, however, to disregard the findings of the family court judge, who saw and heard the witnesses[319 S.C. 363] , nor does it relieve an appellant of the burden of convincing this Court that the family court judge committed error. Skinner v. King, 272 S.C. 520, 252 S.E.2d 891 (1979); Bramlett v. Davis, 289 S.C. 85, 344 S.E.2d 867 (Ct.App.1986).

I.

The father argues the family court erred in increasing his child support on the basis of imputed income not supported by the evidence, or in the alternative, in imputing income in the amount of $30,000 per year. We disagree. Under...