Deen v. Deen

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
David C. Deen, Appellant,
v.
Deborah B. Deen, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2017-001222
Appeal From Anderson County
Edgar H. Long, Jr., Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-415
Submitted December 2, 2019 – Filed December 31, 2019
AFFIRMED
Scarlet Bell Moore, of Greenville, and Thomas Philip
Austin, of Watson Law Firm, of Greenwood, for
Appellant.
Deborah B. Deen, pro se, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: In this divorce action, David C. Deen appeals, arguing the family
court erred in denying his request (1) to modify the alimony payable to Deborah B.
Deen based on a substantial change in circumstances; and (2) for reimbursement of
his attorney's fees. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593, 594, 813 S.E.2d 486, 486 (2018)
(stating on appeal from the family court, this court reviews factual and legal issues
de novo); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 392, 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011) ("[T]he
family court's factual finding will be affirmed unless [the] 'appellant satisfies this
court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of the [family]
court.'" (quoting Finley v. Cartwright, 55 S.C. 198, 202, 33 S.E. 359, 360-61
(1899)); Butler v. Butler, 385 S.C. 328, 336, 684 S.E.2d 191, 195 (Ct. App. 2009)
("Changes in circumstances must be substantial or material to justify modification
or termination of an alimony award."); id. ("Moreover, the change in circumstances
must be unanticipated."); id. ("The party seeking modification has the burden to
show by a preponderance of the evidence that the unforeseen change has
occurred." (quoting Kelley v. Kelley, 324 S.C. 481, 486, 477 S.E.2d 727, 729 (Ct.
App. 1996))); Rule 208(b)(1)(E), SCACR (requiring citation to authority in the
argument section of an appellant's brief); First Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361,
363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (noting when a party fails to cite authority or
when the argument is simply a conclusory statement, the party is deemed to have
abandoned the issue on appeal); State v. Lindsey, 394 S.C. 354, 363, 714 S.E.2d
554, 558 (Ct. App. 2011) ("An issue is deemed abandoned and will not be
considered on appeal if the argument is raised in a brief but not supported by
authority.").
AFFIRMED.1
SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.