meaning of the governing statute and applicable case law. Moreover, these credit card charges were incurred by Wife subsequent to the filing of marital litigation. The court erred in considering the credit card charges as marital debt subject to equitable apportionment. Concomitantly, I agree with the majority’s decision to reverse the portion of the Family Court’s order allocating the credit card debt to Husband. II. Marital Home Husband asserts the Family Court erred in awarding Wife ownership of the marital home as part of her share in the marital estate. I disagree. The Family Court is given broad jurisdiction in the equitable distribution of marital property. Murphy v. Murphy, 319 S.C. 324, 461 S.E.2d 39 (1995); see also Greene v. Greene 351 S.C. 329, 569 S.E.2d 393 (Ct.App.2002) (<HOLDING>). The court may use any reasonable means to
holding the family court has jurisdiction to join third parties when property is alleged to be marital but is owned by a third party holding that trial court has wide discretion in determining sufficiency of foundation for opinion testimony holding family court has wide discretion in determining how marital property is to be distributed recognizing that the trial judge must be given a wide range of discretion in determining whether a mistrial should be declared recognizing that prosecutors are vested with wide discretion in determining how and when to file criminal charges