John Danko III v. Treva Owens ( 2023 )

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
John Danko III, Appellant,
v.
Treva Owens, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2021-001008
Appeal From Berkeley County
Wayne M. Creech, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-101
Submitted January 31, 2023 – Filed March 15, 2023
AFFIRMED
Eric Salisbury Durand, of Eric S. Durand, Esq., LLC, of
North Charleston; and Lauren Kay Anderson, of Ralph
Wilson Law PC, of Conway, both for Appellant.
Brian Dumas, of Brian Dumas, Attorney LLC, of
Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: John Danko III appeals the family court's denial of attorney's
fees, costs, and sanctions related to the enrollment of a foreign order of protection.
On appeal, Danko argues the family court erred in failing to make any findings of
fact or conclusions of law related to his request for attorney's fees, costs, and
sanctions. We affirm.
We hold the family court did not err by denying Danko's request because Danko
failed to show his request for attorney's fees, costs, and sanctions was
well-founded. Thus, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities: Stone v. Thompson, 428 S.C. 79, 91, 833 S.E.2d 266, 272
(2019) (explaining an appellate court reviews attorney's fees de novo);
Tomlinson v. Melton, 428 S.C. 607, 611, 837 S.E.2d 230, 232 (Ct. App. 2019)
("Thus, the appellate court has the authority to find the facts in accordance with its
own view of the preponderance of the evidence."); id. ("However, this broad scope
of review does not require the appellate court to disregard the fact that the family
court, which saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their
credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony."); id. at 611-12, 837
S.E.2d at 232 ("Therefore, the appellant bears the burden of convincing the
appellate court that the family court committed error or that the preponderance of
the evidence is against the court's findings."); E.D.M. v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471,
476-77, 415 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1992) ("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."); Glasscock v. Glasscock, 304
S.C. 158, 161, 403 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1991) (stating the family court should
consider the following factors to determine a reasonable award of attorney's fees:
"(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");
Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510, 722 S.E.2d 222, 224 (2012) ("Beneficial
result alone is not dispositive of whether a party is entitled to attorney's fees."
(quoting Upchurch v. Upchurch, 367 S.C. 16, 28, 624 S.E.2d 643, 649 (2006)));
Gainey v. Gainey, 279 S.C. 68, 70, 301 S.E.2d 763, 764 (1983) ("The petitioner
[seeking attorney's fees] also has a burden to show a request for attorney's fees is
well-founded."); Abbott v. Gore, 304 S.C. 116, 119, 403 S.E.2d 154, 157 (Ct. App.
1991) ("A party who seeks attorney's fees has the burden to show that request is
well-founded and failure to offer any evidence on the issue of attorney's fees
precludes an award."); Rule 20(a), SCRFC ("In any domestic relations action in
which the financial condition of a party is relevant or is an issue to be considered
by the court, a current financial declaration in the form prescribed by the Supreme
Court shall be served and filed by all parties.").
AFFIRMED. 1
WILLIAMS, C.J., THOMAS, J., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.