Kelly v. Rachels, Appellate Case No. 2017-000049

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Decision Date07 August 2019
PartiesKathleen M. Kelly, Respondent, v. James P. Rachels, Appellant.
Docket NumberAppellate Case No. 2017-000049,Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-283

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

Appellate Case No. 2017-000049
Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-283

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Submitted April 1, 2019
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.

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

AFFIRMED

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

Page 2

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, 417 S.C. 3, 17, 788 S.E.2d 228, 235 (Ct. App. 2016) ("Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a party...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT