Lewin v. Lewin, 396 S.C. 349

Lewin (Father) and Lewin (Mother) were married in 1993 and divorced in 2000; Mother had primary physical custody and Father had visitation with two children then aged seven and four.
Mother alleged ongoing marijuana presence and drug/alcohol issues in Father's home during visitation, supported by reports and photographs.
On February 26, 2008, Mother filed a complaint seeking supervised visitation, full custody, guardian ad litem, attorney's fees and costs, and discovery; a temporary relief hearing followed.
March 17, 2008 drug tests showed Mother and children negative; Father negative but bleaching of hair could affect results; later May 2008 Dr. Bennett affidavits showed March 7 cocaine positive and March 17 secondary hair tests positive, with May 9 test negative.
From June 2008 to March 2009, Mother attempted mediation; Father did not respond; November 2009 parties agreed on most issues except attorney's fees; December 2009 the family court approved Mother's partial fee recovery ($15,000) and costs ($3,955) and found Father uncooperative and Mother prevailing.
The family court held Father's conduct, credibility issues, and lack of meaningful response increased fees; Mother was deemed the prevailing party and awarded $18,955 of $27,085 in fees and costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Mother the prevailing party?	Mother prevailed on multiple issues and obtained beneficial results.	Mother did not obtain substantial relief; not the prevailing party.	Yes; Mother prevailed and benefited from results.
Did Father's uncooperative conduct increase litigation costs?	Father's failure to respond and obstructive conduct caused added fees.	Father contends conduct did not justify fee shifting.	Yes; Father's conduct contributed to higher costs.
Should Wife's conduct be considered in the fee award?	Mother argues Wife's conduct should be considered as affecting costs.	Court did not rely on Wife's conduct for fees.	No; Wife's conduct was not a basis for the fee award.
Did the court properly assess Father's ability to pay and Mother's assets?	Court should consider both parties' ability to pay; Father's credibility undermines his assertion.	Father asserts ability to pay is limited and assets are available.	Court properly considered ability to pay; Father’s declaration was not credible and assets were not dispositive.
Was the amount of attorney's fees properly determined?	Fees were reasonable given duration, complexity, and results; Glasscock factors applied.	Fees overstated due to lack of discovery and limited proceedings.	Yes; the amount was properly calculated under Glasscock and related law.

E.D.M. v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471 (S.C. 1992) (factors for attorney's fees determining ability to pay and impact on living standards)
Bodkin v. Bodkin, 388 S.C. 203 (Ct.App.2010) (uncooperative conduct as basis for fee award)
Spreeuw v. Barker, 385 S.C. 45 (Ct.App.2009) (uncooperative litigation conduct supports fee award)
Donahue v. Donahue, 299 S.C. 353 (Ct.App.1989) (lack of cooperation as additional basis for fees)
Anderson v. Tolbert, 322 S.C. 543 (Ct.App.1996) (uncooperative party prolonging resolution not rewarded)
Avery v. Avery, 370 S.C. 304 (Ct.App.2006) (deference to family court on witness credibility; preservation of error)
Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455 (Ct.App.1990) (Rule 59(e) issues must be raised earlier)