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

Timothy McBride,        Respondent,

v.

Charlene McBride        Appellant.

Appeal From Clarendon County
R. Wright Turbeville, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-181
Submitted January 29, 2004 � Filed March 17, 2004

AFFIRMED

Paul L. Held, of Sumter, for Appellant.

William Ceth Land, of Manning, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:� Affirmed pursuant to South Carolina Rules of Appellate Practice, Rule 220, and the following authorities: As to Issue I: Dearybury v. Dearybury, 351 S.C. 278, 282, 569 S.E.2d 367, 369 (2002) (�The decision to grant or deny alimony rests within the discretion of the family court . . . . [and] will not be disturbed on appeal absent abuse thereof.�); see S.C. Code Ann. � 20-3-130(C)(1)-(13) (Supp. 2002) (stating the family court must consider and weigh the following factors in making an award of alimony: 1) �duration of the marriage;�� 2) physical and emotional health of the parties; 3) �educational background� of the parties;���������������������� 4) �employment history and earning potential� of the parties; 5) �standard of living established during the marriage;� 6) �current and reasonably anticipated earnings� of the parties; 7) �current and reasonably anticipated expenses� of the parties; 8) �marital and nonmarital properties of the parties;� 9) �custody of the children;� 10) �marital misconduct or fault;� 11) �tax consequences;� 12) prior support obligations; and 13) �other factors the court considers relevant�); see also Allen v. Allen, 347 S.C. 177, 186, 554 S.E.2d 421, 425 (Ct. App. 2001) (�Our inquiry on appeal is not whether the family court gave the same weight to particular factors as this court would have; rather, our inquiry extends only to whether the family court abused its considerable discretion in assigning weight to the applicable factors.�).

As to Issue II: Ortowski v. Ortowski, 237 S.C. 499, 504, 117 S.E.2d 860, 862 (1961) (�In a motion for a new trial based upon after-discovered evidence, the moving party must show . . . [the evidence] could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence . . . . Such motions are addressed to the sound discretion of the hearing Judge and his refusal will not be interfered with by [an appellate court] unless an abuse of discretion amounting to error of law is shown.� (internal citations omitted)); see also S.C. Code Ann. � 20-3-130(C) (stating the family court may �give weight in such proportion as it finds appropriate� to each of the factors outlined in section 20-3-130).�

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concurring.