Gilbert v. Hornack

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Dana M. Gilbert, Respondent, v.

Charles John Hornack, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-001567

Appeal From Spartanburg County James F. Fraley, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-104 Submitted January 1, 2015 – Filed March 4, 2015

AFFIRMED

Charles John Hornack, of Duncan, pro se.

Dana M. Gilbert, of Duncan, pro se.

PER CURIAM: Charles John Hornack (Father) appeals the family court's order of contempt, arguing the family court erred in finding him in willful contempt and refusing to modify his child support at the contempt proceeding. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

1. As to whether the family court erred in finding Father in willful contempt for failing to pay child support1: Frye v. Frye, 323 S.C. 72, 75-76, 448 S.E.2d 586, 588 (Ct. App. 1994) (finding the issue of the father's contempt moot when the father complied with the contempt order by paying certain medical bills); Jordan v. Harrison, 303 S.C. 522, 524, 402 S.E.2d 188, 189 (Ct. App. 1991) (finding the issue of the husband's contempt moot when the husband complied with the contempt order by paying his child support arrearages and a fine); Chappell v. Chappell, 282 S.C. 376, 377, 318 S.E.2d 590, 591 (Ct. App. 1984) ("Where one held in contempt for violation of a court order complies with the order, his compliance renders the question concerning whether he was in contempt academic or moot and precludes appellate review of the contempt proceedings.").

2. As to whether the family court erred in refusing to modify Father's child support obligation at the contempt proceeding: S.C. Code Ann. § 63-17-830(A) (2010) (providing to request a modification in child support, the parent must file a written request for modification of an order with the Division); S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Polite, 391 S.C. 275, 280, 705 S.E.2d 78, 81 (Ct. App. 2011) (providing the proper step to seek modification is to serve the Division by certified mail).

AFFIRMED.2

HUFF, SHORT, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.