Rouse v. Nauful

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

LeGrand Ariail Rouse, III, Respondent,

v.

Tara E. Nauful, Appellant.

Appeal from Richland County
Gwendlyne Y. Smalls, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-198
Submitted March 1, 2012 Filed March 21, 2012   

AFFIRMED

Gene Trotter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Stevens Bultman Elliott, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Tara E. Nauful (Wife) appeals the family court's order of contempt, arguing the family court erred in (1) holding Wife in contempt for failing to provide the name and contact information of her child's caretaker and (2) awarding $1,500 in attorney's fees to LeGrand Ariail Rouse, III. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1. As to whether the family court erred in holding Wife in contempt: DiMarco v. DiMarco, 393 S.C. 604, 607, 713 S.E.2d 631, 633 (2011) ("A finding of contempt rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge."); Abate v. Abate, 377 S.C. 548, 552, 660 S.E.2d 515, 518 (Ct. App. 2008) ("An appellate court should reverse a decision regarding contempt only if it is without evidentiary support or the trial judge has abused his discretion."). 

2. As to whether the family court erred in awarding attorney's fees to Rouse: Davis v. Davis, 372 S.C. 64, 88, 641 S.E.2d 446, 458 (Ct. App. 2006) ("An award of attorney's fees lies within the sound discretion of the family court and will not be disturbed 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) (providing the test for whether attorney's fees should be awarded); Glasscock v. Glasscock, 304 S.C. 158, 161, 403 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1991) (providing the factors to assess whether the amount of an award of attorney's fees is reasonable).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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