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
Jesse Lee Crawford, Appellant,
v.
Sue Crawford, Respondent.
Appeal From Oconee County
�Timothy M. Cain, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No.� 2010-UP-304
Submitted June 1, 2010 � Filed June 10,
2010
AFFIRMED
R. Scott Sprouse, of Seneca, for Appellant.
Edward Delane Rosemond, of Seneca, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM:�� Jesse Lee Crawford (Husband) appeals the family court's denial of his request for the termination or modification of alimony.� Crawford argues the family court abused its discretion in (1) denying his request to terminate or reduce alimony, and (2) holding him responsible for the original alimony amount when it had been reduced at a subsequent temporary hearing.� We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:�
1. As to whether the family court abused its discretion in denying Husband's request to terminate or reduce alimony:� Thornton v. Thornton, 328 S.C. 96, 111, 492 S.E.2d 86, 94 (1997) (holding alimony will only be modified when there is a substantial or a material change in circumstances); Allen v. Allen, 347 S.C. 177, 183-84, 554 S.E.2d 421, 424 (Ct. App. 2001) ("An award of alimony rests within the sound discretion of the family court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.").� �
2. As to whether the family court abused its discretion in holding Husband responsible for the original alimony amount when it had been reduced at a subsequent temporary hearing: Thornton, 328 S.C. at 115, 492 S.E.2d at 96 ("The decision to order retroactive support rests within the sound discretion of the family court and should not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion by the family court."); Alliegro v. Alliegro, 287 S.C. 154, 157, 337 S.E.2d 252, 254 (Ct. App. 1985) ("The court has the power to make such changes in the amount of alimony originally granted as the altered circumstances of the parties show to be equitable.").
AFFIRMED.
HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.