March 13, 2018
From Greenville County Harry L. Phillips, Jr., Family Court
Lester and Catherine S. Hendrix, both of Ken Lester &
Associates, of Columbia; and David Michael Collins, Jr., of
Collins Law Firm, P.C., of Greenville, all for Appellant.
Alan Wilson, of Wilson & Englebardt, LLC, of Greenville,
appeal, Patricia Clark (Wife) argues the family court erred
in (1) setting child support; (2) finding 75% of Pure
Country, Inc. (PCI) was non-marital property; (3) valuing
Wife's 25% interest in PCI at $75, 000; and (4) refusing
to order George Clark (Husband) to contribute to her
attorney's fees. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
2012, after twenty-five years of marriage, Husband sought a
divorce from Wife on the ground of adultery. The parties had
three children; one was still a minor at the time of filing.
The parties met in 1982 at Emory University. Husband later
obtained an MBA and worked for several businesses before
joining PCI, his parents' and sister's company, in
sales. He became president of PCI around 2001 after his
mother stepped down. Wife began working for PCI a few years
later, eventually becoming the art director. At the time of
filing, Husband was the president of PCI and owned 75% of the
stock; Wife owned the remaining 25%. The family court (1)
granted the parties a divorce on the ground of one year's
separation; (2) granted the parties joint custody and ordered
Husband to pay Wife $744 a month in child support; (3) found
Wife's adultery barred her from receiving alimony; (4)
found Husband's 75% interest in PCI non-marital and
valued Wife's 25% interest at $75, 000; and (5) found
each party responsible for their own attorney's fees.
review decisions of the family court de novo. Stoney v.
Stoney, 422 S.C. 593, 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018).
We may find the facts based on our view of the greater weight
of the evidence. Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 384,
709 S.E.2d 650, 651 (2011). This does not, however, require
us to ignore the reality that the family court saw and heard
the witnesses and was in a better position to gauge their
credibility. The appellant bears the burden of convincing us
the family court erred. Evidentiary and procedural rulings of
the family court, however, are reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Stoney, 422 S.C. at 594 n.2, 813 S.E.2d
at 486 n.2.
argues Wife did not timely serve her notice of appeal. We
203 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules requires Wife
to serve her notice of appeal within thirty days of her
receipt of written notice of entry of the order on appeal.
She did. Wife received written notice of entry of the order
denying her motion for reconsideration on September 11, 2015.
Because October 11, 2015, was a Sunday, and October 12, 2015,
was a federal holiday, Wife's deadline to file and serve
her notice of appeal was October 13, 2015, and she served her
notice of appeal on October 12, 2015, giving us jurisdiction.
See Rules 262(a)(2) and 263(a), SCACR.
argues the family court erred in refusing to deviate from the
Child Support Guidelines when it awarded child support,
contending the amount is inadequate and the family court