Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2015

Allen v. Walters

Allen v. Walters
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Decided August 26, 2015

Allen v. Walters

Opinion

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.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Carlotta Renaye Allen, Respondent, v. Donald Franklin Walters, Jr., Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-001260

Appeal From Lancaster County W. Thomas Sprott, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-440 Submitted July 1, 2015 – Filed August 26, 2015

AFFIRMED

Philip E. Wright, of Lancaster, for Appellant.

Syretta R. Anderson, of Khaled Law Firm, P.C., of Rock Hill, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Wilburn v. Wilburn, 403 S.C. 372, 380, 743 S.E.2d 734, 738 (2013) (noting the de novo standard of review "does not relieve the appellant of the burden of identifying error in the family court's findings" and "the decision of the family court will be upheld unless [this court] finds that a preponderance of the evidence weighs against the family court's decision"); Crossland v. Crossland, 408 S.C. 443, 459, 759 S.E.2d 419, 427-28 (2014) ("In determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors should be considered: '(1) the party's ability to pay his/her own attorney's fee; (2) beneficial results obtained by the attorney; (3) the parties' respective financial conditions; and (4) effect of the attorney's fee on each party's standard of living. E.D.M. v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471, 415 S.E.2d 812 (1992). In determining the amount of reasonable attorney's fees, a court should take six factors into consideration: (1) the nature, extent, and difficulty of the case; (2) the time necessarily devoted to the case; (3) professional standing of counsel; (4) contingency of compensation; (5) beneficial results obtained; and (6) customary legal fees for similar services.' Glasscock v. Glasscock, 304 S.C. 158, 403 S.E.2d 313 (1991).").

AFFIRMED.1 FEW, C.J., and HUFF, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.