THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Ruth Edith Settles, Appellant,
Robert Crafton Settles, Respondent.
Appeal From Greenville County
R. Kinard Johnson, Jr., Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-022
Submitted October 22, 2002 – Filed January 8, 2003
Ivey Toney, of Greenville, for appellant.
Wallace A. Mullinax, Jr., and David A. Wilson, both of Greenville, for respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: As to Issue I: Bowers v. Bowers, 349 S.C. 85, 97, 561 S.E.2d 610, 616 (Ct. App. 2002) (“The apportionment of marital property is within the Family Court judge’s discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Section 20-7-472 lists fifteen factors for the Family Court to consider when making an equitable apportionment of the marital estate. The statute vests the Family Court with the discretion to decide what weight should be assigned to the various factors. On review, this Court looks to the overall fairness of the apportionment, and if the result is equitable, that this Court might have weighed specific factors differently than the Family Court is irrelevant.” (internal citations omitted)); see Pool v. Pool, 321 S.C. 84, 88-89, 467 S.E.2d 753, 756 (Ct. App. 1996) (holding the family court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the husband sixty percent of the marital estate when he made seventy percent of the direct contributions to the marital assets); see Brandi v. Brandi, 302 S.C. 353, 357-58, 396 S.E.2d 124, 126 (Ct. App. 1990) (holding there was no abuse of discretion in awarding the husband seventy percent of the marital property because he made most of the direct contributions to the marital estate even though he committed adultery, was in better health, and had a much greater earning capacity).
As to Issue 2: First Savings Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (holding when an “[a]ppellant fails to provide arguments or supporting authority for his assertion,” the issue is deemed to be abandoned on appeal); see Rule 208(b)(1)(D), SCACR (stating the brief of the appellant must contain, among other things, a discussion of the issue with citations of authority).
As to Issue 3: Rule 208(b)(1)(C), SCACR (stating the brief of the appellant must contain “the amount involved on appeal”); Rule 210(h), SCACR (“[T]he appellate court will not consider any fact which does not appear in the Record on Appeal.”); Forner v. Butler, 319 S.C. 275, 276 n.1, 460 S.E.2d 425, 426 n.1 (Ct. App. 1995) (“It is incumbent upon counsel to provide material that complies with the Rules and facilitates appellate review.”)
CONNOR, STILWELL, and HOWARD, JJ., concur.
 Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.