Walker v. Walker

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

Morgan B. Walker, Respondent, v.

Carla G. Walker, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-002569

Appeal From Beaufort County

Peter L. Fuge, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-301

Submitted September 1, 2020 – Filed November 4, 2020

REVERSED

William Randall Phipps, of Phipps Family Law, P.A., of Hilton Head Island, for Appellant.

Morgan B. Walker, of Beaufort, pro se.

PER CURIAM: Carla G. Walker (Mother) appeals the family court's order finding her in contempt for willfully disobeying the family court's order in numerous ways, particularly concerning Morgan B. Walker's (Father's) visitation with their children.1 We reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the family court erred in holding Mother in contempt of court because the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence she willfully violated the family court order: Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386, 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011) (holding the appellate court reviews decisions of the family court de novo); Miller v. Miller, 375 S.C. 443, 454, 652 S.E.2d 754, 759 (Ct. App. 2007) ("Contempt results from the willful disobedience of an order of the court." (quoting Bigham v. Bigham, 264 S.C. 101, 104, 212 S.E.2d 594, 596 (1975))); Ward v. Washington, 406 S.C. 249, 254-55, 750 S.E.2d 105, 108 (Ct. App. 2013) ("A willful act is one . . . done voluntarily and intentionally with the specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done; that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or disregard the law." (omission in original) (quoting Ex parte Lipscomb, 398 S.C. 463, 469, 730 S.E.2d 320, 323 (Ct. App. 2012))); id. at 255, 750 S.E.2d at 108 ("A good faith attempt to comply with the court's order, even if unsuccessful, does not warrant a finding of contempt." (quoting Ex parte Lipscomb, 398 S.C. at 470, 730 S.E.2d at 324)); Noojin v. Noojin, 417 S.C. 300, 317, 789 S.E.2d 769, 778 (Ct. App. 2016) ("Before a party may be found in contempt, the record must clearly and specifically show the contemptuous conduct." (quoting Hawkins v. Mullins, 359 S.C. 497, 501, 597 S.E.2d 897, 899 (Ct. App. 2004))); id. at 306, 789 S.E.2d at 772 ("A party seeking a contempt finding for violation of a court order must show the order's existence and facts establishing the other party did not comply with the order." (quoting Abate v. Abate, 377 S.C. 548, 553, 660 S.E.2d 515, 518 (Ct. App. 2008))); Miller, 375 S.C. at 454, 652 S.E.2d at 760 ("Once the moving party has made out a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the respondent to establish his or her defense and inability to comply with the order." (quoting Widman v. Widman, 348 S.C. 97, 120, 557 S.E.2d 693, 705 (Ct. App. 2001))); Noojin, 417 S.C. at 306-07, 789 S.E.2d at 772 ("Civil contempt must be shown by clear and convincing evidence." (quoting DiMarco v. DiMarco, 393 S.C. 604, 607, 713 S.E.2d 631, 633 (2011))).

2. As to Mother's remaining issues: Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (noting an appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal).

REVERSED.2

LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.