Stone v. Thompson
| Citation | 426 S.C. 291,826 S.E.2d 868 |
| Decision Date | 03 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | Opinion No. 27876,Appellate Case No. 2017-000227 |
| Parties | A. Marion STONE, III, Respondent, v. Susan B. THOMPSON, Petitioner. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Donald Bruce Clark, of Donald B. Clark, LLC, of Charleston, for Petitioner.
Alexander Blair Cash and Daniel Francis Blanchard, III, both of Rosen Rosen & Hagood, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent.
We granted certiorari to determine whether a family court order finding a common-law marriage was immediately appealable under our general appealability statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330. The family court bifurcated the proceedings to first determine whether the parties were married, and has yet to try the remaining issues. The court of appeals held the order was interlocutory because it did not end the case, and further, that it was not immediately appealable under the statute. Stone v. Thompson , 418 S.C. 599, 795 S.E.2d 49 (Ct. App. 2016). Because the order involved the merits of the causes of action, we reverse.
Stone and Thompson met in 1983 and began a romantic relationship shortly thereafter. Thompson was married to another man at the time and obtained a divorce from him in 1987. Later that year, Stone and Thompson had their first child. After Hurricane Hugo hit Charleston in 1989, the parties had their second child and started living together. They continued to live, raise their children, and manage rental properties together for approximately 20 years, but ultimately ended their relationship after Thompson discovered Stone was having an affair with a woman in Costa Rica.
In 2012, Stone filed an amended complaint in family court alleging, inter alia , he was entitled to a declaratory judgment that the parties were common-law married, a divorce, and an equitable distribution of alleged marital property.1 Thompson answered, contending the parties were not common-law married, asserting several counterclaims, and seeking dismissal of the case. Thompson also asked the court, if it would not dismiss the case, to bifurcate the issues to first determine whether the parties were common-law married. After a hearing, the family court denied Thompson's motion to dismiss but granted her motion to bifurcate, ordering a trial on the sole issue of whether a common-law marriage existed between the parties. The court reasoned that, should it determine no marriage existed, it would not need to address the other issues in the case.
The family court held a 7-day trial that featured 29 witnesses, 12 videotaped depositions, and nearly 200 exhibits. The court determined the parties had expressed the intent and held themselves out to be married beginning in 1989, and accordingly, the parties had been married since that time. The family court's judgment stated it was a "Final Order," but also that it did not end the case, as the divorce and equitable distribution actions were still pending.
Thompson appealed, and Stone argued the order was interlocutory and not immediately appealable under section 14-3-330. The court of appeals agreed with Stone. The court determined the order was interlocutory because, although the family court ruled that a common-law marriage existed and captioned the order "Final," it expressly noted the order did not end the case due to the still-pending divorce and equitable distribution causes of action. The court concluded the order did not involve the merits because the family court exercised its discretion to bifurcate the case and adjudicated the preliminary issue of marriage before proceeding to the remaining issues. Moreover, the court determined the order did not affect Thompson's substantial rights because it did not deprive her of a mode of trial, and she would be able to challenge any error in the future. Consequently, the court dismissed Thompson's appeal.
Section 14-3-330 of the South Carolina Code provides this Court jurisdiction to review, in relevant part:
The provisions of section 14-3-330 are narrowly construed and serve the underlying policy favoring judicial economy by avoiding "piecemeal appeals." Hagood v. Sommerville , 362 S.C. 191, 196, 607 S.E.2d 707, 709 (2005). However, by its nature, the question of whether an order is immediately appealable is determined on a case-by-case basis. Morrow v. Fundamental Long-Term Care Holdings, LLC , 412 S.C. 534, 537–38, 773 S.E.2d 144, 146 (2015).
Thompson argues the order was appealable under section 14-3-330(1) because it finally determined a substantial matter forming part of the cause of action and a defense to it, and therefore, it involved the merits. In response, Stone argues the common-law marriage finding was an embedded element of his claims and a preliminary determination to allow them to go forward. We agree with Thompson.
We believe the text of subsection (1) and our jurisprudence compel the conclusion the order was appealable. Stone's actions for divorce and equitable distribution require a determination the parties are married. This determination is substantial, not only as a part of the causes of action, but also in terms of the larger effects of marriage across other areas of law. Thompson's primary—and, to this point, exclusive—defense to the family court causes of action was that the parties were not married. Accordingly, the court weighed the evidence and finally determined a substantial matter forming part of Stone's causes of action, as well as Thompson's defense, which satisfies the test we clarified in Mid-State . 310 S.C. at 334, 426 S.E.2d at 780.
We emphasize the particular circumstances that lead to our holding today, in keeping with our practice of narrowly construing section 14-3-330. Hagood , 362 S.C. at 196, 607 S.E.2d at 709. In bifurcating the issues, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stone v. Thompson
...an order from a bifurcated hearing determining the existence of a common-law marriage was immediately appealable. In Stone v. Thompson , 426 S.C. 291, 826 S.E.2d 868 (2019), we held it was and retained jurisdiction to consider the merits. We must now determine whether the family court was c......
- Russell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.