Marshall v. Marshall ( 2014 )

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
Joseph A. Marshall, Appellant,
v.
Carrie C. Marshall, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2012-213217
Appeal From Aiken County
Dale Moore Gable, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-020
Heard December 16, 2013 – Filed January 22, 2014
AFFIRMED
Leon Edward Green, of Leon E. Green, PC, of Aiken, for
Appellant.
Gregory P. Harlow, of Harlow Law Offices, PA, of
Aiken, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Joseph A. Marshall (Husband) appeals a qualified domestic
relations order directing him to transfer to his former wife funds equivalent to half
of the present-day value of Husband's pension as of the date of the parties' divorce
hearing. Husband argues his compliance with a prior consent order between the
parties satisfied this obligation. In the alternative, Husband argues the family court
should have required the parties to revert to the provisions in their divorce decree
regarding equitable distribution. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR,
and the following authorities:
1. As to whether Husband's compliance with the prior consent order discharged
the obligation at issue: Harkins v. Greenville Cnty., 340 S.C. 606, 616, 533 S.E.2d
886, 891 (2000) (noting the appellant has the burden of presenting an adequate
record on appeal); Brown v. Brown, 392 S.C. 615, 620-21, 709 S.E.2d 679, 682
(Ct. App. 2011) ("Matters concerning interpretation and enforcement of the family
court's orders are within the family court's discretion."); McClurg v. Deaton, 380
S.C. 563, 575, 671 S.E.2d 87, 94 (Ct. App. 2008) ("A party making a motion under
Rule 60(b) has the burden of presenting evidence proving the facts essential to
entitle him to relief."), aff'd, 395 S.C. 85, 716 S.E.2d 887 (2011); Thomson v.
Thomson, 377 S.C. 613, 625, 661 S.E.2d 130, 136-37 (Ct. App. 2008) (affirming a
finding by the family court that was based on information presented by the
respondent at trial without objection from the appellant).
2. As to whether the family court should have required the parties to revert to
the divorce decree in dividing the marital property: Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp.,
361 S.C. 9, 24, 602 S.E.2d 772, 780 (2004) (emphasizing that a party "must file" a
motion pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, "when an issue or argument has been
raised, but not ruled on, in order to preserve it for appellate review"); Se. Hous.
Found. v. Smith, 380 S.C. 621, 634 n.13, 670 S.E.2d 680, 687 n.13 (Ct. App. 2008)
(rejecting the argument that a Rule 59(e) motion is appropriate only to alter or
amend a "judgment," as opposed to a decision on a Rule 60(b) motion).
AFFIRMED.
SHORT, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.