In Morris v. Morris, our Supreme Court terminated alimony retroactively merely to the date of the divorce decree rather than to the very first alimony payment. 295 S.C. 37, 41, 367 S.E.2d 24, 26 (1988). However, unlike the Supreme Court's approach in Morris, in Watson v. Watson, this Court required a credit against the wife's equitable distribution award for all alimony paid because the wife's adultery pre-dated the temporary alimony award.
Husband contends the family court erred in failing to consider the tax consequences of its order. The apportionment of marital property is within the discretion of the family court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Morris v. Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 39, 367 S.E.2d 24, 24 (1988). In order to effect an equitable apportionment, the family court may require the sale of marital property and a division of the proceeds.
We disagree. The division of marital property is within the discretion of the family court judge and the judge's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Morris v.Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 39, 367 S.E.2d 24, 24 (1988). In order to effect an equitable division of property, the family court may require the sale of marital home.
Id. at 388-89, 709 S.E.2d at 654 (italics omitted). Appellate courts reviewing the equitable division of marital property do not re-weigh the apportionment factors but review the overall apportionment for fairness. Johnson v. Johnson, 296 S.C. 289, 300, 372 S.E.2d 107, 113 (Ct. App. 1988) (citing Morris v. Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 39-40, 367 S.E.2d 24, 25 (1988)). LAW/ANALYSIS
Appellate courts reviewing the equitable division of marital property do not re-weigh the apportionment factors but review the overall apportionment for fairness. Johnson v. Johnson, 296 S.C. 289, 300, 372 S.E.2d 107, 113 (Ct. App. 1988) (citing Morris v. Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 39-40, 367 S.E.2d 24, 25 (1988)). LAW/ANALYSIS
Id. at 388-89, 709 S.E.2d at 654. However, appellate courts, in reviewing the equitable division of marital property, look at the overall apportionment for fairness. Johnson v. Johnson, 296 S.C. 289, 300, 372 S.E.2d 107, 113 (Ct. App. 1988) (citing Morris v. Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 39-40, 367 S.E.2d 24, 25 (1988)). LAW/ANALYSIS
Id. at 388–89, 709 S.E.2d at 654. However, appellate courts, in reviewing the equitable division of marital property, look at the overall apportionment for fairness. Johnson v. Johnson, 296 S.C. 289, 300, 372 S.E.2d 107, 113 (Ct.App.1988) (citing Morris v. Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 39–40, 367 S.E.2d 24, 25 (1988)). LAW/ANALYSIS
The apportionment of marital property is within the discretion of the family court judge and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. SeeMorris v. Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 39, 367 S.E.2d 24, 25 (1988). South Carolina Code Ann. § 20-7-472 (Supp. 2002) provides the family court must consider fifteen factors and give each weight as it determines.
We disagree. The apportionment of marital property is within the discretion of the family court judge and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Morris v. Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 39, 367 S.E.2d 24, 25 (1988);Bungener v. Bungener, 291 S.C. 247, 251, 353 S.E.2d 147, 150 (Ct.App. 1987). South Carolina Code Ann. § 20-7-472 (Supp.
On review, we look to the fairness of the overall apportionment. If the end result is equitable, it is irrelevant that we might have weighed specific factors differently than the trial court. Seealso Morris v. Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 367 S.E.2d 24 (1988) (even if adjustments could be made in the equitable apportionment, remand is unnecessary when the results reached by the family court are fair and equitable); Walker v. Walker, 295 S.C. 286, 368 S.E.2d 89 (Ct.App. 1988) (this Court will affirm if it can determine that the family court judge addressed the factors under § 20-7-472 with sufficiency for us to conclude the court was cognizant of the required factors for the particular case). IV. Attorney Fees