Kelly v. Rachels, 2019-UP-283

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Docket Number: 2019-UP-283
• Parties: Kathleen M. Kelly, Respondent, v. James P. Rachels, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2017-000049
• Decision Date: 07 August 2019

Kathleen M. Kelly, Respondent,
v.
James P. Rachels, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-000049

No. 2019-UP-283

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

August 7, 2019

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.

Submitted April 1, 2019

Appeal From Lexington County W. Greg Seigler, Family Court Judge

James P. Rachels, pro se.

James W. Corley, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

James P. Rachels appeals the family court's order finding him in contempt for failing to fully satisfy his arrearage through payments to Kathleen Kelly and awarding Kelly attorney's fees. Rachels also appeals the family court's order denying his Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion and denying his motion to sanction Kelly for filing a frivolous claim. On appeal, Rachels argues the family court erred by (1) finding he was in arrears, (2) failing to find he overpaid Kelly, (3) finding he was in contempt, (4) awarding Kelly attorney's fees, and (5) denying his motion for sanctions. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.As to whether the family court erred by finding Rachels was in arears, failing to find Rachels overpaid Kelly, and finding Rachels was in contempt: Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, th[e appellate court] reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 385, 709 S.E.2d 650, 651-62 (2011) (finding this broad scope of review does not require the appellate court to disregard the fact that the family court, which saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony); 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))); Am. Sur. Co. v. Hamrick Mills, 194 S.C. 221, 230, 9 S.E.2d 433, 437 (1940) ("If there [were] error in the judgment of the [s]upreme [c]ourt, it should have been corrected by means of a petition for re[]hearing."); Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Chandler, 228 S.C. 412, 415, 90 S.E.2d 489, 490 (1955) (finding it would be improper to consider arguments against an opinion's propriety on a second appeal when the parties did not file a petition for rehearing on the first appeal because the first decision was the law of the case); Atkins v. Wilson, ...