UP-188 - Short v. Short

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 Vera Short, Respondent, v. Donnie Lee Short, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2014-001558 Appeal From Chesterfield County Salley Huggins McIntyre, Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-188 Submitted March 1, 2016 – Filed May 4, 2016 AFFIRMED Sarah Crawford Campbell, Melvin Wayne Cockrell, III, and Andrew McLeod Privette, all of Cockrell Law Firm, P.C., of Chesterfield, for Appellant. Tiffany Brooke Hunt, of Jebaily Law Firm, PA, of Florence, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Marquez v. Caudill, 376 S.C. 229, 246, 656 S.E.2d 737, 745 (2008) ("The decision to award attorney's fees is a matter within the sound discretion of the [family court] and the award will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."); 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; (4) effect of the attorney's fee on each party's standard of living."); Reiss v. Reiss, 392 S.C. 198, 210-11, 708 S.E.2d 799, 805 (Ct. App. 2011) (concluding the family court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees when it properly considered the E.D.M. and Glasscock1 factors); Bodkin v. Bodkin, 388 S.C. 203, 223, 694 S.E.2d 230, 241 (Ct. App. 2010) ("This court has previously held when parties fail to cooperate and their behavior prolongs proceedings, this is a basis for holding them responsible for attorney's fees."). AFFIRMED.2 THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 1 2 304 S.C. 158, 403 S.E.2d 313 (1991). We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.