credible than Mother and Sister. We disagree. Initially, we note Mother and Sister cite no authority for their argument. Therefore, this court may deem this argument abandoned. See Bryson v. Bryson, 378 S.C. 502, 510, 662 S.E.2d 611, 615 (Ct. App. 2008) (“An issue is deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal if the argument is raised in a brief but not supported by authority.”). In any event, we find no error in the circuit court’s finding that Lisa overpaid $850.96 to Mother and Sister. Even when this court’s scope of review is broadened in equity cases, “[t]he credibility of testimony is a matter for the finder of fact to judge.” S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Forrester, 282 S.C. 512, 516, 320 S.E.2d 39, 42 (Ct. App. 1984); see Laughon, 360 S.C. at 524-25, 602 S.E.2d at 111 (<HOLDING>). In a bench trial, the judge, as the finder of
holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court erred in failing to make specific findings of fact as to all claims in the appellants rule 32 petition was not preserved for review because the appellant did not first present the claim to the circuit court holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court failed to make specific findings of fact relating to issues raised at an evidentiary hearing on the appellants postconviction petition was not preserved for review because the appellant did not raise the issue in the circuit court holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses holding the preponderaneeoftheevidence standard of review does not require this court to disregard the findings at trial or ignore the fact that the circuit court was in a better position to assess the credibility of the witnesses