Lanier v. Lanier, No. 3966.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: Anderson
• Citation: 612 S.E.2d 456,364 S.C. 211
• Parties: Anna H. LANIER, Appellant, v. Robert F. LANIER, Jr., Respondent.
• Docket Number: No. 3966.
• Decision Date: 21 March 2005

612 S.E.2d 456 364 S.C. 211 Anna H. LANIER, Appellant,
v.
Robert F. LANIER, Jr., Respondent. No. 3966. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard March 9, 2005. Decided March 21, 2005. Rehearing Denied May 19, 2005.

Page 457

Donald Bruce Clark and Mary Ann Hall, both of Charleston, for Appellant.

Marvin I. Oberman and Paul E. Tinkler, both of Charleston, for Respondent.

ANDERSON, J.:

Anna H. Lanier (Wife) and Robert F. Lanier (Husband) entered into a divorce settlement agreement which the family court incorporated

Page 458

into its final order of divorce. Wife appeals the family court's denial of her Rule 60(b)(2), SCRCP motion for relief from the final order. We affirm.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Husband and Wife, who had been married since 1984, were divorced in March of 2003. Wife alleges that prior to their marriage, the parties entered into an antenuptial agreement (the agreement) in which Husband released his marital rights in Wife's property if they divorced. During the course of the marriage, the agreement was lost. Wife searched for the document when she initiated the proceeding. She checked with Husband, her bank (where the document had been stored), and her financial advisor, but her search was not successful. However, several months after the family court entered its final order, Wife found a copy of the agreement folded in a greeting card in her desk drawer.

The content of the agreement was not pled in the original action for divorce. After she found the agreement, Wife filed a motion for relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2), SCRCP. The family court heard the matter and denied the motion. On appeal, Wife argues that the requested relief should have been granted because the agreement qualified as newly discovered evidence. Additionally, she disputes the family court's award of attorney's fees.

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. Moghaddassi v. Moghaddassi, Op. No. 3932, 364 S.C. 182, 612 S.E.2d 707, 2005 WL 196558 (S.C. Ct.App. filed January 31, 2005) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 6 at 48); Emery v. Smith, 361 S.C. 207, 603 S.E.2d 598 (Ct.App.2004) (citing Rutherford v. Rutherford, 307 S.C. 199, 414 S.E.2d 157 (1992)). However, this broad scope of review does not require us to disregard the family court's findings. Bowers v. Bowers, 349 S.C. 85, 561 S.E.2d 610 (Ct.App.2002); Badeaux v. Davis, 337 S.C. 195, 522 S.E.2d 835 (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, 280 S.E.2d 541 (1981); Murdock v. Murdock, 338 S.C. 322, 526 S.E.2d 241 (Ct.App.1999); see also Dorchester County Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Miller, 324 S.C. 445, 477 S.E.2d 476 (Ct.App.1996) (noting that because the appellate court lacks the opportunity for direct observation of witnesses, it should accord great deference to the family court's findings where matters of credibility are involved). An appellate court "should be reluctant to substitute its own evaluation of the evidence on child custody for that of the trial court." Woodall v. Woodall, 322 S.C. 7, 10, 471 S.E.2d 154, 157 (1996). Our broad scope of review does not relieve appellant of her burden to convince this Court the family court committed error. Skinner v. King, 272 S.C. 520, 522-23, 252 S.E.2d 891, 892 (1979).

A party seeking to set aside a judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) has the burden of presenting evidence entitling him to the requested relief. Perry v. Heirs at Law of Gadsden, 357 S.C. 42, 590 S.E.2d 502 (Ct.App.2003). "The decision to grant or deny a motion under Rule 60(b) is within the sound discretion of the trial court." Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146, 151, 591 S.E.2d 654, 656 (Ct.App.2004) (citing Coleman v. Dunlap, 306 S.C. 491, 413 S.E.2d 15 (1992)); see also Saro Invs. v. Ocean Holiday Pship., 314 S.C. 116, 441 S.E.2d 835 (Ct.App.1994) (noting that Rule 60(b) motions are addressed to the discretion of the court and appellate review is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion). Review is thus limited to determining whether the family court abused its discretion in granting or denying the motion. Raby Constr., L.L.P. v. Orr, 358 S.C. 10, 18, 594 S.E.2d 478, 482 (2004); Bowman at 151, 591 S.E.2d at 656.

LAW/ANALYSIS I. Rule 60(b)(2) Motion

Wife argues she is entitled to relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b)(2). We disagree.

Page 459

A. Propriety of Attacking a Consent Judgment Through a Rule 60(b) Motion

As a preliminary matter, we address whether a consent judgment may be attacked via a Rule 60(b) motion. Husband argues that consent orders are "binding and conclusive and cannot be attacked by the parties either on direct appeal or in a collateral proceeding." See Johnson v. Johnson, 310 S.C. 44, 46, 425 S.E.2d 46, 48 (Ct.App.1992). Although this is the general rule, consent judgments are subject to attack in particular circumstances, including for the reasons specified in Rule 60(b). See Raby Constr., L.L.P. v. Orr, 358 S.C. 10, 18 n. 3, 594 S.E.2d 478, 482 n. 3 (2004) ("[E]ven consent judgments are subject to attack under particular circumstances."). Indeed, the Johnson court ultimately granted relief under Rule 60(b)(5). Id.; Johnson, 310 S.C. at 47, 425 S.E.2d at 48. Additionally, consent orders could be vacated under the statutory predecessor to Rule 60. See Lord Jeff Knitting Co., Inc. v. Mills, 281 S.C. 374, 376, 315 S.E.2d 377, 378 (Ct.App.1984) (acknowledging availability of relief but refusing it on other grounds). Therefore, we find no error in the family court's decision to consider Wife's motion on the merits.

B. Rule 60(b)(2)

The South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure apply in family court when no family court rule provides otherwise. Rule 2, SCRFC. Rule 60(b), SCRCP, reads:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

....

(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

....

This rule is substantially the same as the federal rule. See Rule 60, SCRCP, note ¶ 1; Thynes v. Lloyd, 294 S.C. 152, 363 S.E.2d 122 (Ct.App.1987).

C. Elements for Obtaining a New Trial Under Rule 60(b)(2)

To obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a movant must establish that the newly discovered evidence:

(1) will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) has been discovered since the trial; (3) could not have been discovered before the trial; (4) is material to the issue; and (5) is not merely cumulative or impeaching.

James F. Flanagan, South Carolina Civil Procedure 484 (2nd ed.1996) (citing Johnston v. Belk-McKnight Co., 188 S.C. 149, 198 S.E. 395; McCabe v. Sloan, 184 S.C. 158, 191 S.E. 905 (1937)); see Lans v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 110 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.2000); Raymond v. Raymond Corp., 938 F.2d 1518 (1st Cir.1991); Duffy v. Clippinger, 857 F.2d 877 (1st Cir.1988); Lloyd v. Gill, 406 F.2d 585 (5th Cir.1969); Johnson v. United States, 32 F.2d 127 (8th Cir.1929); Kettenbach v. Demoulas, 901 F.Supp. 486 (D.Mass.1995); see also Wright & Miller, 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ.2d § 2859 (1995) (noting the standard applied to newly discovered evidence is the same for Rule 59(b) and Rule 60(b)(2), and discussing the elements); 12 Moore's Federal Practice § 60.42[2] (Matthew Bender 3rd ed.) (discussing various elements tests for Rule 60(b)(2)).

D. Newly Discovered Evidence

First, we note that courts have found evidence is not newly discovered evidence for the purposes of Rule 60(b)(2) where the evidence was (1) known to the party at the time of trial, and (2) in the party's possession.

1. Known to the Party at the Time of Trial

In Lans v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 110 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.2000), the...