730 S.E.2d 879
S.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Husband and Wife married in 1999 and have one child, R.B., born 1999.
- They separated in 2007 and pursued custody, child support, and equitable division of marital property in family court.
- Temporary orders granted joint custody with Wife as primary custodian and Husband with liberal visitation; later orders addressed mortgage, property restrictions, and counsel fees.
- Final hearing in 2009 led to a divorce, a custody finding favoring Wife for primary placement, and a partial division of marital assets.
- The family court awarded Wife attorney’s fees and issued orders concerning child support, visitation, and property distributions, all subject to post-trial challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the marital estate properly valued and allocated? | Buist contends FMV and Landscape Supply debt were not properly treated; 15 factors not fully applied. | Buist argues the court undervalued assets and failed to consider all liabilities. | Reversed and remanded for proper valuation and complete consideration of all assets and debts. |
| Is primary custody with Wife in R.B.’s best interests? | Buist claims factors show Wife’s care was not superior for R.B. | Buist argues evidence supports his bid for primary placement. | Court affirmed primary placement with Wife based on best interests finding. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion in the visitation arrangement? | Buist challenged modifications to the temporary visitation order. | Wife argued changes were in R.B.’s best interests and supported by evidence. | visitation schedule affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
| Should child support be paid via the clerk of court or directly to Wife? | Buist contends payments should follow the temporary arrangement. | Wife preferred direct payments; court order inconsistent on this point. | Court reversed method; Buist must continue payments, but may deposit directly into Wife’s account. |
| Was the award of attorney’s fees properly preserved for review? | Buist challenged the Glasscock factors in the fee award. | Wife supported the award; Buist did not preserve the issue at trial. | Issue not preserved; affirmed fee ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glasscock v. Glasscock, 304 S.C. 158, 403 S.E.2d 313 (1991) (factors for attorney's fees award)
- Hardy v. Hardy, 311 S.C. 433, 429 S.E.2d 811 (Ct.App.1993) (relevant to marital debt and distribution)
- Rowland v. Rowland, 295 S.C. 131, 367 S.E.2d 434 (Ct.App.1988) (remand for findings on contributions and debts)
- Pirayesh v. Pirayesh, 359 S.C. 284, 596 S.E.2d 505 (Ct.App.2004) (consideration of all relevant factors in custody)
- Glanton v. Glanton, 314 S.C. 58, 443 S.E.2d 810 (Ct.App.1994) (education as a best interests factor)
- Paparella v. Paparella, 340 S.C. 186, 531 S.E.2d 297 (Ct.App.2000) (custody considerations and best interests)
- Woodall v. Woodall, 322 S.C. 7, 471 S.E.2d 154 (Ct.App.1996) (visitation primacy in child welfare)
- Davis v. Davis, 356 S.C. 132, 588 S.E.2d 102 (2003) (best interests standard for custody)
- Patel v. Patel, 347 S.C. 281, 555 S.E.2d 386 (2001) (consideration of multiple factors in custody)
- Rimer v. Rimer, 361 S.C. 521, 605 S.E.2d 572 (Ct.App.2004) (temporary orders not binding final rights)
- In re Michael H., 360 S.C. 540, 602 S.E.2d 729 (2004) (preservation requirement for issues on appeal)
- Buckner v. Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., 255 S.C. 159, 177 S.E.2d 544 (1970) (unpreserved rulings and law of the case)
- S.C. Dep’t of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 641 S.E.2d 903 (2007) (timeliness of post-trial challenges)