A. Wife's Appeal Mrs. McKnight contends the court erred in denying her alimony and attorney's fees in her action for separate maintenance because its decision was based primarily on fault rather than the factors enunciated by the Supreme Court in cases such as Lide v. Lide, 277 S.C. 155, 283 S.E.2d 832 (1981), and Nienow v. Nienow, 268 S.C. 161, 232 S.E.2d 504 (1977). We agree and reverse.

"No one factor should be considered dispositive." Lide v. Lide, 277 S.C. 155, 157, 283 S.E.2d 832, 833 (1981). Although section 20-3-130(C) requires the family court to consider and give appropriate weight to each of the thirteen factors, it does not require a full explanation of the weight accorded to each factor.

"No one factor should be considered dispositive." Lide v. Lide, 277 S.C. 155, 157, 283 S.E.2d 832, 833 (1981). Although section 20-3-130(C) requires the family court to consider and give appropriate weight to each of the thirteen factors, it does not require a full explanation of the weight accorded to each factor.

An award of alimony rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Lide v. Lide, 277 S.C. 155, 283 S.E.2d 832 (1981). The family court ordered Hillock to pay Seven Hundred Dollars ($700.00) per month for eighteen months as rehabilitative alimony. It did not award permanent alimony to Voelker.

The wife argues on appeal that the trial court, in denying her alimony, failed to give proper consideration to the duration of the marriage, the wife's contribution to the accumulation of their joint wealth, and the husband's marital misconduct. While an award of alimony rests in the sound discretion of the trial court [ Lide v. Lide, 277 S.C. 155, 283 S.E.2d 832 (1981); Nienow v. Nienow, 268 S.C. 161, 232 S.E.2d 504 (1977)], several different factors should be considered by the trial court in determining whether to award alimony. See, e.g., Burgess v. Burgess, 277 S.C. 283, 286 S.E.2d 142 (1982); Atkinson v. Atkinson, 279 S.C. 454, 309 S.E.2d 14 (S.C.App., 1983).

These factors were largely taken from opinions of our courts before 1990. See, e.g. , Lide v. Lide , 277 S.C. 155, 157, 283 S.E.2d 832, 833 (1981) (listing nine "factors to be considered in determining whether alimony should be awarded" (citing Powers v. Powers , 273 S.C. 51, 54, 254 S.E.2d 289, 291 (1979) ; Nienow v. Nienow , 268 S.C. 161, 170-71, 232 S.E.2d 504, 509 (1977) )); Spence v. Spence , 260 S.C. 526, 529, 197 S.E.2d 683, 684 (1973) (providing factors to consider in deciding whether to award alimony (citations omitted)). The factors for this threshold determination are now set forth in subsection 20-3-130(C), which requires the family court "must consider and give weight in such proportion as it finds appropriate to all of the ... factors."

When we reversed a family court's finding based on de novo review, we often said the family court "abused its discretion." See Shaluly v. Shaluly, 284 S.C. 71, 74, 325 S.E.2d 66, 67 (1985) (where the family court failed to make findings, this Court made its own findings and observed, "we have studied the record and listened to the arguments of counsel and reached the decision that the judge abused his discretion in failing to allocate the wife a more abundant portion of the property she helped to accumulate"); Lide v. Lide, 277 S.C. 155, 158, 283 S.E.2d 832, 834 (1981) (weighing the evidence and concluding, "the trial judge abused his discretion in denying alimony to the wife"). Nevertheless, this Court and the court of appeals generally sustained (and continue to sustain) family court findings of fact, notwithstanding our constitutional imprimatur for denovo review.

" Both parties agree that the granting of an award of alimony is a matter of discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Lide v. Lide, 277 S.C. 155, 283 S.E.2d 832 (1981). Furthermore, an alimony award should not serve as a disincentive for a spouse to make reasonable efforts to improve her employment potential or become self-sufficient.

1989). The factors to be considered in awarding alimony set forth in Lide v. Lide, 277 S.C. 155, 283 S.E.2d 832 (1981) are as follows: (1) the financial condition of the husband and the needs of the wife;

We agree. In reviewing the factors to be considered in awarding alimony as set forth in Lide v. Lide, 277 S.C. 155, 283 S.E.2d 832 (1981), the trial judge failed to give proper consideration to two of the factors. First, the lower court incorrectly valued Mrs. Strickland's monthly income.