Brantley v. Brantley
| Docket Number | 6023,Appellate Case 2020-000260 |
| Decision Date | 30 August 2023 |
| Parties | Ingrid G. Brantley, Respondent, v. Dennis E. Brantley, Sr., Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Heard March 9, 2023
Appeal From Richland County Monét S. Pincus, Family Court Judge
Gregory S. Forman, of Charleston, for Appellant.
Peter George Currence, of McDougall, Self, Currence & McLeod LLP, of Columbia, and Jordan Christopher Calloway, of McGowan Hood Felder & Phillips, of Rock Hill, both for Respondent.
In this domestic matter, Dennis E. Brantley, Sr. (Father) argues the family court erred by (1) overstating Father's income when calculating child support, retroactive child support and unreimbursed medical expenses; (2) holding Father responsible for 85% of the two younger children's extracurricular activity expenses; (3) finding Father in contempt for failing to inform Ingrid G. Brantley (Mother) of his new address before moving and enrolling their eldest son at a new high school; and (4) requiring Father to pay $75,000 in attorney's fees and costs. We affirm as modified in part and reverse in part.
Father and Mother were married on May 16, 1999, and divorced on September 26, 2016. During their marriage, the parties had three children: D.B. (Oldest Son) as well as G.B. and H.B. (the Twins). Mother and Father's divorce decree incorporated as a court order a "Partial Marital Settlement Agreement" establishing custody, visitation, and other arrangements for the children's care.
Mother and Father stipulated their individual gross monthly incomes as $3,000 and $10,000, respectively. Accordingly, Father agreed to pay $750 per month in child support to Mother along with accepting responsibility for the children's health insurance premiums (valued at $397 per month) and 77% of the children's unreimbursed medical expenses and extracurricular activity expenses. The agreement also imposed behavioral requirements and restrictions on both Mother and Father, including keeping each other informed of their permanent address and to provide ninety days' notice of "any intention to move his or her residence."
Mother initiated this action on April 12, 2018. Mother alleged Father's new relationship with his then-girlfriend, Paula Cobb, and potential relocation plans were straining his relationship with the Twins. Mother sought a change in custody, a recalculation of child support, and attorney's fees and costs. Father answered and counterclaimed on May 30, 2018, seeking sole custody, child support from Mother, reimbursement from Mother for previously incurred expenses, and fees.
During a May 30, 2018 hearing, the family court determined Father's move and its effect on the children's school enrollment warranted an investigation to determine whether the parties' previous custody arrangement should be changed. The temporary order further required the children stay in their current schools for the remainder of the 2017-18 academic year. Additionally, on June 7, 2018, the family court appointed Richard G. Whiting (Guardian) as the children's guardian ad litem. Following a hearing on August 9, 2018, the family court modified the temporary order (Temporary Order) by granting Father primary physical custody of Oldest Son and Mother primary physical custody of the Twins.
Father filed a contempt action against Mother on July 2, 2018, alleging Mother refused to comply with the Temporary Order by failing to provide ninety days' notice of her intention to move, failing to reimburse out-of-pocket healthcare expenses, and failing to reimburse extracurricular expenses. Mother also filed a contempt petition alleging Father failed to comply with the Temporary Order by refusing to provide Mother with his new address upon relocation and enrolling Oldest Son in Chapin High School prior to receiving a determination from the court as to where the children would attend school for the 2018-2019 school year.
The family court held a trial on March 5-7, May 6-7, and July 29-30, 2019, before Judge Monét S. Pincus. During trial, conflicting testimony arose regarding Father's gross annual income. Father is a self-employed businessman deriving income from three separate businesses. As a result, Father's tax returns and supporting financial documents were necessary in determining his gross annual income. However, this determination became difficult due to Father's financial documents containing numerous errors and omissions such as miscategorization of rent payments, income, business versus personal expenditures, and certain real property.
Mother then presented expert testimony from accountant and certified fraud examiner Christopher Leventis,[1] who attempted to calculate Father's annual gross income. Leventis reviewed Father's personal accounts as well as other relevant financial documents, including his bank statements, credit card statements, and personal tax returns. In his report, Leventis determined Father's gross income to be $202,233 for 2017 and $124,743 for 2018. However, Leventis noted that without Father's 2018 tax return and other supporting documentation, his 2018 income determination was incomplete and opined Father's 2018 income was likely higher.
In its November 8, 2019 final order, the family court found Father was a non-credible witness and his pretrial conduct and trial testimony failed to offer the cooperation necessary to aid the court in resolving the parties' dispute. Specifically, the family court stated:
Father's lack of credibility, the lack of supporting documentation from Father regarding his income, the errors and inconsistencies on Father's Financial Declarations and tax returns, Father's personal expenditures, and the fact that multiple tax returns for multiple years were admittedly inaccurate, weighed heavily in the Court's decision to adopt the income Mr. Leventis attributed to Father.
The family court found Father's annual gross income for 2017 was $203,067 and that his 2018 income was consistent with this figure. Accordingly, Father was ordered to pay $1,530 per month in child support as well as a total of $12,760 in retroactive child support. Using these gross income determinations, the family court also ordered the parties to split the children's unreimbursed healthcare costs, with Father paying 85% and Mother paying 15%.
Further, the family court found Father in contempt for willfully violating the Partial Marital Settlement Agreement by failing to provide Mother proper notice of his move to Chapin or his permanent address there, exposing the Twins to overnight visits with his girlfriend on multiple occasions, and by enrolling Oldest Son in Chapin High School for the 2018-19 school year. The family court also found Mother in contempt for failing to provide Father ninety days' notice of her intention to move her residence; failing to reimburse out-of-pocket healthcare expenses; and partially in contempt for failing to reimburse costs of extracurricular expenses.
The family court determined an award of attorney's fees to Mother was warranted based upon Father's substantially greater ability to pay his fees; Mother's beneficial results on most issues; Father's substantially higher income; and the potential negative impact to Mother's standard of living. In determining the reasonableness of the award, the family court found this case was complicated due to the issues associated with Father's financial declarations and the fractured relationships of the parents and children. Specifically, the family court found (1) Father's actions increased the extent and difficulty of the services rendered in this case by denying certain events occurred and (2) Father's lack of credibility regarding his Financial Declarations, tax returns, and bookkeeping increased the nature, extent, and difficulty of the attorney's work in this case and required Mother to hire a forensic accountant to determine his income. Further, Mother obtained beneficial results in proving Father understated his income and on the issues of child support and custody. As a result, the family court found Father responsible for $75,000 in attorney's fees and costs but permitted Father to deduct $988.18, which Mother owed him for medical costs and extracurricular costs.
Father filed a motion to reconsider on November 18, 2019. On January 7, 2020, the family court entered an amended final order making some minor changes to its earlier order. This appeal follows.
I. Did the family court err in determining Father's income and child support determination?
II. Did the family court err in ordering Mother and Father to split extracurricular activity expenses?
III. Did the family court err in finding Father in contempt?
IV. Did the family court err in awarding attorney's fees and costs to Mother?
"The appellate court reviews decisions of the family court de novo." Clark v. Clark, 423 S.C. 596, 603, 815 S.E.2d 772, 776 (Ct. App. 2018). "The appellate court generally defers to the findings of the family court regarding credibility because the family court is in a better position to observe the witness and his or her demeanor." Id. "The party contesting the family court's decision bears the burden of demonstrating the family court's factual findings are not supported by the preponderance of the evidence." Id.
I. Child Support
Father argues the family court erred in determining his income because it improperly found he lacked credibility regarding his financial declarations and improperly qualified and relied on Leventis. As a result, Father contends the family court's calculations of child support, retroactive child support, unreimbursed medical...
To continue reading
Request your trial