Stoney v. SR

Decision Date20 December 2017
Docket NumberAppellate Case No. 2016-002076,Opinion No. 27758
Citation813 S.E.2d 486
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
Parties Lori Dandridge STONEY, Respondent, v. Richard S.W. STONEY Sr., Petitioner, and Theodore D. Stoney Jr., Petitioner.

Charles H. Williams, of Williams & Williams, of Orangeburg, Donald Bruce Clark, of Charleston, and James B. Richardson Jr., of Columbia, for Petitioners.

J. Michael Taylor, of Taylor/Potterfield, of Columbia, and Peter George Currence, of McDougall, Self, Currence & McLeod, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioners each seek a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals in Stoney v. Stoney , 417 S.C. 345, 790 S.E.2d 31 (Ct. App. 2016). In Stoney , the court of appeals directed the family court judge to conduct a new trial after holding the judge abused his discretion or otherwise erred in regards to multiple issues. Finding error in the standard of review applied by the court of appeals on issues III to XI, we grant the petitions, dispense with further briefing, reverse the court of appeals, and remand the case to the court of appeals to decide the appeal applying the appropriate standard of de novo review articulated in Lewis v. Lewis , 392 S.C. 381, 709 S.E.2d 650 (2011).1

In Lewis , this Court extensively analyzed the applicable standard of review in family court matters and reaffirmed that it is de novo.2 We noted that, while the term "abuse of discretion" has often been used in this context, it is a "misnomer" in light of the fact that de novo review is prescribed by article V, § 5 of the South Carolina Constitution. See S.C. Const. art. V, § 5 (stating in equity cases, the Supreme Court "shall review the findings of fact as well as the law, except in cases where the facts are settled by a jury and the verdict not set aside").

We observed that de novo review allows an appellate court to make its own findings of fact; however, this standard does not abrogate two long-standing principles still recognized by our courts during the de novo review process: (1) a trial judge is in a superior position to assess witness credibility, and (2) an appellant has the burden of showing the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of the trial judge.

In the current appeal, the court of appeals cited Lewis , but it veered from a complete application of this benchmark. The court of appeals repeatedly referenced an "abuse of discretion" standard throughout its findings, which culminated in a reversal and remand for a new trial on numerous issues. As recognized by the parties, once the court of appeals found error in one aspect of the family court judge's ruling, it impacted other components, creating a "domino effect."

Although appellate courts have been citing Lewis for the appropriate standard of review in family court matters since its publication in 2011, there appears to be lingering confusion over the actual implementation of this standard. This is evidenced by the fact that in some decisions the courts have cited Lewis while also simultaneously referencing cases citing an abuse of discretion standard.3 In addition, some attorneys continue to cite an abuse of discretion standard in their briefs to this Court. This trend is troubling in light of the fact that application of the correct standard of review is often crucial in an appeal. See Dorman v. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control , 350 S.C. 159, 565 S.E.2d 119 (Ct. App. 2002) (highlighting the critical importance of a court's standard for review). For these reasons, we reiterate that the proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo, rather than an abuse of discretion, and encourage our courts to avoid conflating these terms in appeals from the family court.

Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand this case for consideration of the issues on appeal applying the de novo standard.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.

1 We vacate our previous opinion in this case, and substitute this opinion. See Stoney v. Stoney , 421 S.C. 528, 809 S.E.2d 59 (2017).

2 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. See, e.g. , Broom v. Jennifer J. , 403 S.C. 96, 115, 742 S.E.2d 382, 391 (2013) (stating on appeal from the family court "the admission or exclusion of evidence is within the trial judge's discretion" (citing Fields v. Reg'l Med. Cent. Orangeburg , 363 S.C. 19, 25-26, 609 S.E.2d 506, 509 (2005) ) ); Gov't Employee's Ins. Co., Ex parte , 373 S.C. 132, 135, 644 S.E.2d 699, 701 (2007) (stating on appeal from the family court, "The decision to grant or deny a motion to join an action pursuant to Rule 19, SCRCP, or intervene in an action pursuant to Rule 24, SCRCP, lies within the sound discretion of the trial court."); Ware v. Ware , 404 S.C. 1, 10, 743 S.E.2d 817,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
185 cases
  • Williams v. Williams
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • May 25, 2022
    ... ... Id. at 388, 709 S.E.2d at 653. " 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." Stoney v. Stoney , 422 S.C. 593, 594 n.2, 813 S.E.2d 486, 486 n.2 (2018) (per curiam). "An abuse of discretion occurs either when a court is controlled by some error of 436 S.C. 559 law, or where the order is based upon findings of fact lacking evidentiary support." Sellers v. Nicholls , 432 S.C ... ...
  • Kosciusko v. Parham
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • November 6, 2019
    ... ... 491 STANDARD OF REVIEW "The family court is a court of equity." Lewis v. Lewis , 392 S.C. 381, 386, 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011). "Our standard of review, therefore, is de novo ." Id ... ; see also Stoney v. Stoney , 422 S.C. 593, 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[W]e reiterate that the proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo, rather than an abuse of discretion ... "). Accordingly, "[o]n appeal from the family court, the appellate court has jurisdiction to find facts in ... ...
  • Bojilov v. Bojilov
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • September 19, 2018
    ... ... The family court also denied Wife's request for attorney's fees and costs for defending Husband's motion to alter or amend. This cross-appeal followed. STANDARD OF REVIEW The appellate court reviews decisions of the family court de novo. Stoney v. Stoney , 422 S.C. 593, 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) (per curiam). In a de novo review, the appellate court is free to make its own findings of fact but must remember the family court was in a better position to make credibility determinations. 425 S.C. 174 Lewis v. Lewis , 392 S.C. 381, ... ...
  • Bauckman v. McLeod
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • December 31, 2019
    ... ... Did the family court err in awarding attorney's fees and costs to Father? STANDARD OF REVIEW "The family court is a court of equity." Lewis v. Lewis , 392 S.C. 381, 386, 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011). "Our standard of review, therefore, is de novo ." Id ... ; see also Stoney v. Stoney , 422 S.C. 593, 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[W]e reiterate that the proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo, rather than an abuse of discretion ... "). Accordingly, "[o]n appeal from the family court, the appellate court has jurisdiction to find facts in ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Review of the Year 2019 in Family Law: Case Digests
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Family Law Quarterly No. 53-4, January 2020
    • January 1, 2020
    ...did not prioritize sibling placement in considering permanency plans of a child and his half-sister. South Carolina. Stoney v. Stoney , 813 S.E.2d 486 (S.C. 2018). The South Carolina Supreme Court overruled an appellate court decision on a divorce matter because the appellate court used an ......

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