THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Rebecca J. Waters, Respondent,

Sheldon K. Waters, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County
R. Kinard Johnson, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-102
Submitted January 1, 2005 – Filed February 10, 2005

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED

Jeffrey Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Catherine E. Fairey and O. Doyle Martin, both of Greenville for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this divorce case, Shelden K. Waters (Husband) appeals from the family court’s order requiring him to pay child support past his minor child’s age of majority, imputing income to him under the child support guidelines, equitably dividing marital debt, and awarding attorney’s fees to Rebecca J. Waters (Wife). We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand.1

FACTS

Husband and Wife were married for twenty-nine years. The couple lived in Michigan during the first part of their marriage. Husband worked at the same job for eighteen years and was the primary wage earner. Wife stayed home and cared for the couple’s four children. Tragically, the couple’s daughter, Olivia, died in the collapse of a stroller when she was five years old. A lawsuit followed with a judgment of $335,000. The parties used part of the money to set up a trust fund of $30,000 each for their remaining three children of whom Adam was the youngest child with the provision the funds would be available at age eighteen. Following the accident, Husband was extremely depressed. Wife convinced Husband to move to South Carolina despite his reservations about finding commensurate employment. Husband had difficulty obtaining employment at the same pay level he enjoyed in Michigan and although both parties had difficulty dealing with the death of their daughter, Husband continued to support the family after moving to South Carolina.

Despite their attempt to “start over,” Husband and Wife continued to experience marital difficulties after moving. The couple eventually separated and Wife filed for divorce on the ground of physical cruelty and sought custody, child support, equitable apportionment of the marital property, and attorney’s fees. Following the separation, Adam, the parties’ only minor child, experienced significant problems. Adam was arrested several times, assaulted his mother, and was hospitalized following an overdose of alcohol and medication. At the time of the trial, Adam was seventeen years old and not currently enrolled in high school. Wife testified she “hoped” Adam would complete his education and she had “made arrangements” for Adam to attend adult education classes. Wife asserted she would only consent to Adam remaining in her home if he was in school and working.

Notwithstanding Adam’s behavioral difficulties, Wife sought custody of him. Additionally, she sought an increase of child support and continuation of child support for one year after Adam reached majority to allow him to complete his education. At the time of the hearing, Wife was employed as a bookkeeper and earned $43,548 annually. Although Wife testified Husband was a “very hard worker” and supported the family throughout the marriage, Husband lost his job due to layoffs shortly before the final hearing. Husband had earned more than $42,000 per year and was actively seeking employment, but his only income at the time of the hearing was unemployment compensation at the rate of $1,204 per month. Because Husband was not employed at his full earning potential, Wife sought to impute income to Husband to increase his support obligation under the child support guidelines.

By order dated April 22, 2002, the family court granted the parties a divorce based upon one year’s continuous separation. Although insufficient to support a finding of physical cruelty as the ground for divorce, the family court also found there was a history of emotional, verbal and physical abuse by Husband. The family court found Husband’s underemployment was voluntary and imputed income to him in the amount of $10.00 per hour. Husband was ordered to pay child support until Adam graduated from high school or reached age nineteen. The family court apportioned the marital estate equally between the parties. Although disputed by Husband, the family court found Wife’s credit card debt was incurred for the benefit of both parties and their children. Therefore, the marital estate included the credit card debt. The family court also ordered Husband to pay $10,000 of Wife’s attorney’s fees and costs. Husband appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

On appeal from the family court, this court has the authority to find the facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Rutherford v. Rutherford, 307 S.C. 199, 204, 414 S.E.2d 157, 160 (1992). We are not, however, required to disregard the findings of the family court, which saw and heard the witnesses and was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony. Haselden v. Haselden, 347 S.C. 48, 58, 552 S.E.2d 329, 334 (Ct. App. 2001); Wilson v. Walker, 340 S.C. 531, 537, 532 S.E.2d 19, 22 (Ct. App. 2000).

LAW/ANALYSIS

1. Child Support

Husband argues the family court erred by ordering him to pa