Singh v. Singh

• Decision Date: 08 September 2021
• Docket Number: Appellate Case No. 2020-000457,Opinion No. 28057
• Citation: 434 S.C. 223,863 S.E.2d 330
• Parties: Gunjit Rick SINGH, Petitioner, v. Simran P. SINGH, Respondent.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

434 S.C. 223

863 S.E.2d 330

Gunjit Rick SINGH, Petitioner,

v.Simran P. SINGH, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2020-000457

Opinion No. 28057

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard June 17, 2021

Filed September 8, 2021

Robert N. Rosen, of Rosen Law Firm, LLC, of Charleston, Sheila McNair Robinson, of Moore Taylor Law Firm, P.A., of West Columbia, and Katherine Carruth Goode, of Winnsboro, for Petitioner.

O. Grady Query, Michael W. Sautter, Michael Holland Ellis, Jr., and Alexander Woods Tesoriero, all of Query Sautter & Associates, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent.

JUSTICE HEARN :

The question presented in this case is whether South Carolina law permits issues relating to child custody and visitation to be submitted to binding arbitration with no oversight by the family court and no right of review by an appellate tribunal. We believe the answer is clearly and unequivocally no.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

After nearly seventeen years of marriage, Respondent Simran Singh (Mother) and Petitioner Gunjit Singh (Father) separated in January of 2012. They subsequently entered into a settlement agreement later that year which resolved all issues arising from their marriage, including custody and visitation matters involving their two children, then aged eleven and two.¹ Pursuant to that agreement, Mother received primary custody, and the parties consented to submit any future disputes regarding child support or visitation to a mutually agreed-upon arbitrator, specifically providing that his or her decision would "be binding and non-appealable." The family court approved the agreement and granted the parties a divorce in February of 2013.

Approximately nine months later, Father filed an action in family court seeking modification of custody, visitation, and child support, alleging Mother had violated a provision of the agreement when she failed to return to South Carolina with the children after embarking on a cross-country tour as a motivational speaker. From January through August of 2014, four family court judges issued decisions—one dismissing Father's complaint due to the parties’ decision to arbitrate; a second issuing a consent order to arbitrate; and two approving amended agreements to arbitrate. The agreements contained the following provision: "The parties fully understand that the decision of the Arbitrator is final and binding upon them and that they do not have the right to apply to this Court or to any other Court for relief if either is unsatisfied with the Arbitrator's decision."²

The two judges who ruled on the amended agreements found them to be "fair and equitable" as well as enforceable by the court. The arbitrator—a well-respected Charleston family law attorney and mediator—issued a "partial" arbitration award in August, finding a substantial and material change of circumstance affecting the welfare and custody of the minor children, and awarding Father temporary custody. A thirty-two-page final arbitration award was issued the next month, awarding custody to Father. A fifth family court judge issued an order in January of 2015 confirming both the partial and final arbitration awards.

However, within days of the arbitrator's final award and months before the family court approved it, Mother—represented by new counsel—filed a motion for emergency relief, asking the court to vacate the arbitration awards and the prior court orders approving the parties’ agreements to arbitrate. Following a hearing on that motion, the court issued an order confirming both the partial and final arbitration awards "with finality" and denied the motion seeking to vacate the awards as premature. It thus appears that four different family court judges approved—at times apparently without a hearing—the parties’ agreements to arbitrate the issues involving the children, and a fifth judge confirmed the validity of the arbitration award.

Thereafter, Mother filed five separate Rule 60(b)(4), SCRCP, motions to vacate all the orders approving the parties’ agreements to arbitrate. Although Mother requested the motions be consolidated for a hearing before a single judge in the interest of judicial economy, that motion was denied. Five separate hearings ensued, all of which ultimately resulted in orders denying mother's motions. Mother thereafter filed five notices of appeal from orders denying her motions, and the court of appeals consolidated them. The court of appeals issued its unanimous decision in December of 2019, holding that the parties could not divest the family court of jurisdiction to determine issues relating to custody, visitation, and child support. Singh v. Singh , 429 S.C. 10, 30, 837 S.E.2d 651, 662 (Ct. App. 2019).³ One month prior thereto, another panel of the court of appeals issued a decision in Kosciusko v. Parham , 428 S.C. 481, 505, 836 S.E.2d 362, 375 (Ct. App. 2019), holding the family court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to approve the binding arbitration of children's issues.⁴ We granted certiorari in this case because the court of appeals based its decisions on slightly different grounds, and affirm as modified.

ISSUE

Did the court of appeals err in concluding the family court could not delegate its exclusive jurisdiction to determine the best interest of the child?

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Generally, appellate courts review the decision of the family court de novo, with the exception of evidentiary and procedural rulings. Lewis v. Lewis , 392 S.C. 381, 386, 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011) ; Stoney v. Stoney , 422 S.C. 593, 595 n.2, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 n.2 (2018) (" Lewis did not address the standard for reviewing a family court's evidentiary or procedural rulings, which we review using an abuse of discretion standard."). While this consolidated appeal results from multiple orders denying Mother's Rule 60(b) motions, the underlying question stems from the family court's legal authority to delegate its jurisdiction to an arbitrator, which is a question of law for the Court to review de novo.

DISCUSSION

We begin our analysis with the recognition that family courts are statutory in nature and therefore possess only that jurisdiction specifically delegated to them by the South Carolina General Assembly, which was granted authority over these issues in Article V, section 12 of the South Carolina Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional grant of authority, the General Assembly created the family courts and established the parameters of their jurisdiction. S.C. Code Ann. § 63-3-530 (2010 & Supp. 2020) (stating the family court has exclusive jurisdiction over forty-six matters listed); State v. Graham , 340 S.C. 352, 355, 532 S.E.2d 262, 263 (2000) ("The family court is a statutory court created by the legislature and, therefore, is of limited jurisdiction."). Accordingly, the family court's jurisdiction is "limited to that expressly or by necessary implication conferred by statute." Graham , 340 S.C. at 355, 532 S.E.2d at 263. Significantly, subsection 63-3-530(39) provides the family court with exclusive jurisdiction:

[T]o require the parties to engage in court-mandated mediation pursuant to Family Court Mediation Rules or to issue consent orders authorizing parties to engage in any form of alternate dispute resolution which does not violate the rules of the court or the laws of South Carolina ; provided however, the parties in consensual mediation must designate any arbiter or mediator by unanimous consent subject to the approval of the court[.]

S.C. Code Ann. § 63-3-530(39) (2010) (emphasis added). While this provision envisions arbitration in some areas, our court rules and jurisprudence confirm that children's matters are not within the ambit of issues subject to arbitration.

Our Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (ADR) contemplate both mediation and arbitration of family court matters, but implicitly limit binding arbitration to issues of property and alimony. See Rule 3(a), SCADR (requiring "all contested issues in domestic relations actions filed in family court" be subject to mediation unless the parties agree to conduct arbitration); Rule 4(d)(1), SCADR (providing "[i]f there are unresolved issues of custody or visitation , the court may ... order an early mediation of those issues upon motion of a party or upon the court's own motion") (emphasis added); Rule 4(d)(2), SCADR (stating "the parties may submit the issues of property and alimony to binding arbitration in accordance with subparagraph (5)"); Rule 4(d)(5), SCADR (noting "[i]n lieu of mediation, the parties may elect to submit issues of property and alimony to binding arbitration in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration Act, S.C. Code Section 15-48-10 et. seq., or submit all issues to early neutral evaluation pursuant to these rules"). We agree with the court of appeals’ decision in Kosciusko , 428 S.C. at 498, 836 S.E.2d at 371, which applied the canon of construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius , meaning to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of another. Accordingly, because the drafters of Rule 4(d), SCADR, expressly included arbitration of property and alimony but only addressed custody and visitation in the context of early mediation, it can be fairly implied that the rule does not permit binding arbitration of children's issues.⁵ Thus, to the extent that the court of appeals’ opinion in this case suggests our ADR rules do not prohibit arbitration of children's issues, we modify that portion accordingly.

Further, our construction of the ADR rules mirrors the jurisprudence of this state, which has consistently recognized the authority of the family courts over issues regarding children. In the seminal decision of Moseley v. Mosier , this Court stated that "family courts have continuing jurisdiction to do whatever is in the best interests of the child regardless of what the separation agreement specifies." 279 S.C. 348, 351, 306 S.E.2d 624, 626 (1983). Following Moseley , the court of appeals decided Ex parte Messer...