### THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECED ENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVID ED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Cheryl DiMarco, Respondent,

v.

Brian A. DiMarco, Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2018-001703

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT O F APPEALS

Appeal From Greenville County Rochelle Y. Conits, Family Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2019-MO-009 Submitted January 28, 2019 – Filed February 27, 2019

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

J. Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Petitioner.

Kim R. Varner and Charles Grant Varner, of Varner & Segura, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner Brian DiMarco has fi led a petition for a writ of certiorari asking this Court to r eview the Court of Appeals' de cision in DiMarco v.Dimarco , Op. No. 2018-UP-231 (S.C. Ct. A pp. filed June 6, 2018). We g rant the petition, dispense with further b riefing, and affirm as modifie d.

I.
Petitioner Brian DiMarco (Husba nd) and Respondent Cheryl DiMarc o (Wife) were divorced in September 1998. Following their divorce, Wife reta ined custody of the parties' four children and Husba nd was ordered to pay child sup port. In March 2004, the family court approved a child support agreement reach ed by the parties. Husband was ordered to pay mont hly child support in the amount of $1,439 to Wife.
Following emancipation of one c hild in 2006, Husband unilateral ly stopped paying child support without seeking a modification of the family cour t's previous order. In response, Wife filed a motion requesting discovery, an incre ase in child support, and attorney's fees.
In 2008, Wife's action proceeded to a hearing in family court, after which the family court awarded Wife $1,246 in child support for the two r emaining dependent children and $25,000 in attorney's fees. In awarding Wife attorney's fees, the family court thoroughly analyzed all six of the Glasscock 1 factors and found the time and effort devot ed to the case by Wife's counsel was necessary due to Husband's conduct and the comp lexity of the case and that th e fees charged by counsel were appropriate given Wife's counsel's professional st anding. The court further found that Wife obtained a beneficial result in "an ext remely complex matter in which [Husband had] de liberately attempted to underes timate his income for child support purposes and was extremely evasive" in court and during depositions, noting that Husband had "taken every effort to und uly complicate the true nature of his incom e." Husband appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed a nd remanded the family court's c alculation of child support, finding the family cour t failed to properly consider evidence of Husband's rental income and expenses. The Court of Appeals also remanded the issue of attorney's fees for the family court's reconsideration.

1 Glasscock v. Glasscock , 304 S.C. 158, 161, 403 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1991) (finding that a determination of the reasonablen ess of attorney's fees should t ake into consideration six factors: (1) the nature, extent, and diffi culty of the case; (2) the tim e necessarily devoted to the case; (3) professional standing of counsel; (4 ) contingency of compensati on; (5) beneficial results obtained; (6) customary legal fees for similar services).On remand, the family court accep ted the parties' settlement as to recalculated child support and reaffirmed its initial award of attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed. This petition for a writ of certiorari follo wed.

II.
Husband contends the family cour t erred in reaffirming its awar d of attorney's fees to Wife, arguing there was a rev ersal in beneficial results in the case. We disagree.

On remand from the Court of App eals, the issues of child suppor t and attorney's fees were bifurcated. The parties first resolved the child support calculation through an out-of-court settleme nt agreement, approved by the f amily court and finalized in a written order. F ollowing a separate hearing on the issue of attorney's fees, the family court reaffirmed its initial award of attorney 's fees. Specifically, the family court considered all of the Glasscock factors and noted Husband's deliberate attempts to underestim ate his income and tendency no t to be forthright throughout the proceedings as factual support for its determina tion that the initial $25,000 award of attorney's fees t o Wife remained appropriate. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
We find the family court carefu lly reconsidered the attorney's fees issue on remand and appropriately reaffirmed its initial award of attorney's fe es to Wife. We therefore affirm as modified. 2

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTRED GE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.

2 We reject the argument that t he family court could not reconsi der attorney's fees on remand, notwithstanding the part ies settlement as to the issue of child support. The issue of attorney's fees was expressly included i n the Court of Appeals' remand. DiMarco v. DiMarco , 399 S.C. 295, 302, 731 S.E.2d 617, 621 (S.C. Ct. App. 2012) (remanding " to the family court for reconsideration of a ttorney's fees"). Cf

. Prince v. Beaufort Memorial Hosp. , 392 S.C. 599, 605, 709 S.E.2d 122, 125 (2011) (observing when the appellate court remands a case, the lower tribunal has the ju risdiction and authority mandated by the app ellate court).