Browning v. Browning

• Citation: 621 S.E.2d 389
• Decision Date: 17 October 2005
• Docket Number: No. 4031.,4031.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Parties: Rhonda W. BROWNING, Respondent, v. Gregory W. BROWNING, Appellant.

621 S.E.2d 389

Rhonda W. BROWNING, Respondent, v. Gregory W. BROWNING, Appellant.

No. 4031.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Submitted September 1, 2005.

Decided October 17, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Spencer Andrew Syrett, of Columbia, for Appellant.

James M. Saleeby, Sr., of Florence and Marian D. Nettles, of Lake City; for Respondent.

BEATTY, J.:

In this domestic contempt action, Gregory W. Browning (Husband) appeals the family court's order, arguing the court erred in: (1) finding Husband in contempt for failing to timely comply with the parties' Property Settlement Agreement; (2) ordering Husband to submit to a medical examination so that Rhonda W. Browning (Wife) could obtain a life insurance policy on Husband; (3) addressing issues regarding a life insurance policy for the benefit of the parties' emancipated son; and (4) awarding Wife attorney's fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and modify in part.¹

FACTS

Husband and Wife were married on August 16, 1975, and had one child during the marriage. On September 15, 2000, the parties separated. Prior to a hearing for temporary relief, the parties entered into a Property Settlement Agreement (Agreement) on March 7, 2001. By order dated May 29, 2001, the family court approved the Agreement. The parties were later divorced on July 8, 2002.

On February 2, 2004, Wife filed an action seeking to hold Husband in contempt for violating the Agreement. In her amended complaint, Wife alleged, inter alia, Husband: (1) failed to pay Wife her one-half share of the equity in the former marital home within thirty days of Wife vacating the home; (2) refused to submit to a medical examination in order that Wife could obtain a life insurance policy on Husband; and (3) failed to provide proof of coverage to Wife regarding a $2,000,000 life insurance policy for the benefit of the parties' emancipated son. In conjunction with these assertions, Wife also requested Husband pay her attorney's fees as well as interest for the seven-month period that Husband delayed in paying her share of the former marital home. In his Answer, Husband denied the allegations and sought, as a counterclaim, for the court to find Wife in contempt for failing to comply with several provisions of the Agreement.

After a hearing, the family court issued an order in which it: (1) found Husband failed to pay Wife, within the prescribed thirty-day period, her one-half interest in the former marital home; (2) ordered Husband to pay twelve percent interest for the seven-month period that he delayed in paying Wife her $175,000 share; (3) ordered Husband to submit to a medical examination so that Wife could procure a life insurance policy on Husband; (4) ordered Husband to provide proof of insurance coverage in which he indicated that the parties' emancipated son was the beneficiary of a $2,000,000 life insurance policy; and (5) awarded Wife attorney's fees in the amount of $2,700.² Husband appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In appeals from the family court, this court may find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Dearybury v. Dearybury, 351 S.C. 278, 283, 569 S.E.2d 367, 369 (2002). However, this broad scope of review does not require us to disregard the family court's findings. Bowers v. Bowers, 349 S.C. 85, 91, 561 S.E.2d 610, 613 (Ct.App.2002); Badeaux v. Davis, 337 S.C. 195, 202, 522 S.E.2d 835, 838 (Ct.App.1999). Nor must we ignore the fact that the trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony. Cherry v. Thomasson, 276 S.C. 524, 525, 280 S.E.2d 541, 541 (1981).

DISCUSSION

I. Contempt

Husband argues the family court erred in finding him in contempt and awarding Wife twelve percent interest for the seven months he delayed in paying Wife her interest in the marital home. Although Husband admits that he failed to timely pay Wife her share, he contends the seven-month delay was not willful given Wife created the delay. Specifically, he claims he was unable to immediately refinance the mortgage with which to pay Wife because, unbeknownst to him, Wife opened several credit accounts in his name. Husband asserts financing was not approved until these accounts were resolved and Wife completed information required for refinancing.

"The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to preservation of order in judicial proceedings." In re Brown, 333 S.C. 414, 420, 511 S.E.2d 351, 355 (1998). Contempt results from a party's willful disobedience of a court order. Smith v. Smith, 359 S.C. 393, 396, 597 S.E.2d 188, 189 (Ct.App.2004); S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-1350 (Supp.2004) (A party may be found in contempt of court for the willful violation of a lawful court order.). "A willful act is one which is `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.'" Widman v. Widman, 348 S.C. 97, 119, 557 S.E.2d 693, 705 (Ct.App.2001) (quoting Spartanburg County Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Padgett, 296 S.C. 79, 82-83, 370 S.E.2d 872, 874 (1988)). "[B]efore a court may find a person in contempt, the record must clearly and specifically reflect the contemptuous conduct." Widman, 348 S.C. at 119, 557 S.E.2d at 705.

"In a proceeding for contempt for violation of a court order, the moving party must show the existence of a court order and the facts establishing the respondent's noncompliance with the order." Hawkins v. Mullins, 359 S.C. 497, 501, 597 S.E.2d 897, 899 (Ct.App.2004). "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." Widman, 348 S.C. at 120, 557 S.E.2d at 705.

"A trial court's determination regarding contempt is subject to reversal where it is based on findings that are without evidentiary support or where there has been an abuse of discretion." Henderson v. Puckett, 316 S.C. 171, 173, 447 S.E.2d 871, 872 (Ct.App.1994). "Even though a party is found to have violated a court order, the question of whether or not to impose sanctions remains a matter for the court's discretion." Hawkins, 359 S.C. at 503, 597 S.E.2d at 900. "An abuse of discretion occurs either when the court is controlled by some error of law or where the order, based upon findings of fact, lacks evidentiary support." Townsend v. Townsend, 356 S.C. 70, 73, 587 S.E.2d 118, 119 (Ct.App.2003).

We find the family court did not abuse its discretion in holding Husband in contempt. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Wife was permitted to reside in the marital home until the parties' son enrolled in college. Wife then had thirty days to vacate the home. At that point, Husband was given the option of purchasing Wife's one-half share of the equity in the marital home. On January 1, 2002, Husband informed Wife that he intended to exercise this option. In compliance with the Agreement, Wife vacated the marital home on September 17, 2002. Thus, Husband was required to pay Wife her $175,000 equity share by October 17, 2002. Husband did not, however, pay Wife until approximately seven months later on May 16, 2003.

Although Husband violated the Agreement by failing to strictly comply with the thirty-day time period, we find Husband did not willfully cause the entire seven-month delay. Husband's mortgage broker testified Husband initiated the process to refinance the marital home in 2002. He further testified there was a "short delay" in the process due to Husband's credit score, which had been adversely affected by accounts Wife had apparently opened without Husband's knowledge. Additionally, he stated the remaining delay resulted because Wife did not sign over title to the property for several months after the quitclaim deed to the home was sent to her attorney's office. He testified the deed was sent to her attorney in October or November of 2002 and was returned to Husband in February 2003. He stated there was no explanation for this delay and that the refinancing loan went through within three and a half weeks after the deed was received. Wife also did not offer any explanation for the delay.

Because Wife did not expeditiously sign and return the quitclaim deed, we find Husband should not be penalized for the time period preceding his receipt of the deed in February 2003. Accordingly, we modify the family court's order and award Wife interest in the amount of $5,250, which represents the three-month delay between February 2003 and May 2003.³

II. Life Insurance

A.

Husband argues the family court erred in requiring him to submit to a medical examination in order that Wife could obtain a life insurance policy on his life. Because Wife's right to alimony had ended and all of the parties' property claims had been settled, Husband asserts Wife no longer has an insurable interest in his life. Thus, he contends he should not be forced to assist Wife in procuring the life insurance policy. We find the court erred as a matter of law.

"Whether a property settlement agreement should be deemed to bar the divorced wife from receiving insurance benefits is a question of the construction of the agreement itself." Estate of Revis v. Revis, 326 S.C. 470, 477, 484 S.E.2d 112, 116 (Ct.App.1997). When parties merge their settlement agreement into a decree, the family court transforms it from a contract between the parties to a decree of the court. Emery v. Smith, 361 S.C. 207, 214, 603 S.E.2d 598, 601 (Ct.App.2004). "Thereafter, the agreement, as part of the court order, is fully subject to the family court's authority to interpret and enforce its own decrees." Id. at 214, 603 S.E.2d at 601-02.

In order to analyze this issue, we must consider the controlling provision of the Agreement within...