Stoney v. Stoney, Appellate Case No. 2011–203410

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtMCDONALD, J.
Citation417 S.C. 345,790 S.E.2d 31
PartiesLori Dandridge Stoney, Appellant, v. Richard S.W. Stoney Sr., Defendant/Respondent, and Theodore D. Stoney Jr., Third–Party Intervenor/Respondent.
Docket NumberOpinion No. 5431,Appellate Case No. 2011–203410
Decision Date27 July 2016

417 S.C. 345
790 S.E.2d 31

Lori Dandridge Stoney, Appellant,
v.
Richard S.W. Stoney Sr., Defendant/Respondent,
and
Theodore D. Stoney Jr., Third–Party Intervenor/Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2011–203410
Opinion No. 5431

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard November 12, 2014
Filed July 27, 2016
Rehearing Denied September 9, 2016


J. Michael Taylor, of Taylor/Potterfield, and Peter George Currence, of McDougall & Self, LLP, both of Columbia, for Appellant.

Charles H. Williams, of Williams & Williams, of Orangeburg, for Respondent Theodore D. Stoney Jr.

Donald Bruce Clark, of Donald B. Clark, LLC, of Charleston, and James B. Richardson Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent Richard S.W. Stoney Sr.

MCDONALD, J.:

417 S.C. 353

In this marital litigation, Lori Dandridge Stoney (Wife) contends the family court erred in (1) permitting Theodore D. Stoney Jr. (Brother) to intervene or, in the alternative, failing to control the extent of this intervention; (2) denying Wife's motion to reopen on the basis of newly discovered evidence; (3) imputing income of only $100,000 per year to Richard S.W. Stoney Sr. (Husband); (4) failing to award Wife alimony; (5) failing to make a proper child support determination; (6) failing to require that Husband maintain life insurance/other security; (7) erroneously apportioning the marital property in several respects; (8) failing to find Wife has a special equity in certain businesses; (9) declining to hold Husband in contempt; (10) failing to grant Wife a divorce on the ground of adultery; and (11) failing to award Wife attorney's fees. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On October 12, 1996, Husband and Wife married in Berkeley County. Prior to the marriage, the parties entered into a prenuptial agreement.1 The parties have one child together (Child).2

At the beginning of the marriage, Husband and Wife practiced law together; however, Wife began her own practice in

417 S.C. 354

1997. Around this time, the parties opened a restaurant called the Boathouse at Breach Inlet (BHBI)3 on the Isle of Palms, and Husband eventually stopped practicing law to focus on

790 S.E.2d 36

the restaurant. Wife's practice of law also became subordinate to the family's needs and operation of the parties' business ventures.4

BHBI was very successful from the time it opened, and it became the source from which Husband financed his other ventures. Husband purchased four other restaurants and various businesses during the course of the marriage, making “loans” from BHBI to the new entities. These businesses were managed by Husband's company, Crew Carolina.

The couple's second restaurant was the Boathouse at East Bay Street (BHEB) in downtown Charleston. Although BHEB broke even, Husband closed the restaurant in January 2009. As of December 31, 2008, BHEB had a net asset value of negative $141,048. Husband and Brother jointly owned the real property on which BHEB was located.5

In 2003, the couple opened the Boathouse at Lake Julian (BHLJ) in Asheville, North Carolina, which closed in July 2008. As of December 31, 2008, BHLJ had a net asset value of negative $1,297,939, which included an allocation of $474,792.78 of a Carolina First/DI Carolinas consolidation loan. In 2004, the couple purchased Carolinas, an existing restaurant located on Exchange Street in downtown Charleston, which they subsequently renovated. As of December 31, 2008, Carolinas had a net asset value of $89,539. Husband sold Carolinas6 in

417 S.C. 355

January 2010 for over $550,000.7 Additionally, Husband advanced funds and assisted a third-party with opening Choto, a restaurant in Knoxville, Tennessee.8

In February of 2009, the parties opened their final restaurant, the Boathouse at Ellis Creek (BHEC), which burned to the ground one month later. Husband received over $850,000 in insurance proceeds during the first year the parties were separated; however, he did not use this money to rebuild the restaurant.9 Instead, these funds were used to satisfy obligations to other creditors and business partners. This account was drained by the time of trial. In his testimony, Husband explained, “every dime that I received for Ellis Creek was used to offset the massive amount of debt we had, and I believe that the forensic accountants have well covered that fact. ... I am doing everything I can to rebuild Ellis Creek.” Throughout the trial, Husband referred to “robbing Peter to pay Paul” to keep creditors at bay and allow certain businesses to continue operating.

Husband started three additional businesses shortly after Wife filed for divorce: Amen Street Fish & Raw Bar, J & S Fish, LLC, and Rice Market.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 23, 2009, Wife filed an action for divorce seeking sole custody of Child, child support, alimony, equitable division, and other relief. By consent order dated May 15, 2009, the family court approved a change of venue from Charleston

417 S.C. 356

County to Orangeburg County. That same day, the family court approved a consent order sealing the record.

On June 18, 2009, Husband filed an answer and counterclaim, seeking joint custody of Child, enforcement of a prenuptial agreement,

790 S.E.2d 37

equitable division of the marital property and debt, and certain other relief. In addition, Husband sought the imputation of income to Wife and to pay reasonable child support pursuant to the South Carolina Child Support Guidelines.

On July 10, 2009, Wife filed a reply and counterclaim, admitting she had signed a prenuptial agreement, but alleging it had been lost. On this same date, the Honorable Anne Gue Jones entered a temporary order. This temporary order adopted an agreement titled, “Consent Order Regarding Certain Child Issues,” which, among other things, awarded custody to Wife and prohibited Husband from exposing Child to his paramours. The other issues raised remained contested. The court granted Wife exclusive use and possession of the couple's condominium in Charleston, and required Husband to pay Wife approximately $22,000 per month for Wife and Child's expenses. On February 26, 2010, a supplemental temporary order was issued, relieving Husband of certain obligations required by the July 10, 2009 temporary order.

On January 5, 2010, Brother filed a motion to intervene to protect his interests in certain real property, business concerns, and debts he asserts he is owed. The court granted Brother's motion to intervene by order dated February 22, 2010, finding “[Brother]'s interest in this action outweighs any privacy interest that [Wife] asserts. ... [T]he interests of [Brother] and the property which is the subject of this action cannot be adequately protected because of the [Husband]'s tenuous financial condition.”

On March 4, 2010, Brother filed a third-party complaint, requesting, among other things, a determination by the court that his loans to Husband (and to the parties on behalf of Husband) constituted marital debt. Husband answered Brother's complaint on March 4, 2010, admitting all of Brother's claims and joining in the relief sought by Brother. Wife answered on March 29, 2010, asserting that she had insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations. On August

417 S.C. 357

2, 2010, the family court issued a consent order relieving Husband's counsel. From this point through the two-week trial, Husband acted pro se.

During the pendency of this action, Husband was held in willful contempt with regard to four petitions and one supplemental petition for rules to show cause, and an additional rule remains unresolved. Specifically, Wife initially filed two petitions for rules to show cause (Rule 1 and Rule 2a), and a supplemental petition (Rule 2b). Rule 1, Rule 2a, and Rule 2b were resolved by order dated February 25, 2010, in which the family court found Husband in willful contempt for failing “to make payments under the Temporary Order, while he had funds to pay for other personal expenses on his behalf.”

Wife filed a third rule to show cause (Rule 3) against Husband on January 11, 2010, regarding a criminal domestic violence situation involving Brother and Husband that resulted in physical injury to Wife in Child's presence. On March 29, 2010, the family court found Husband to be in willful contempt. Additionally, the court required counseling for Husband and Child, appointed a parenting coordinator, and authorized Wife to tape her phone conversations with Husband.

Wife filed two additional petitions for rules to show cause (Rule 4 and Rule 5). In Rule 4, issued on June 29, 2010, Wife alleged that Husband failed to pay her regime fees, Wife and Child's uncovered medical/dental expenses, Child's private school expenses, and certain credit card obligations. In Rule 5, issued on October 8, 2010, Wife alleged Husband exposed Child to his paramour in violation of a specific restraining order.10 Both...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Stoney v. Stoney, Appellate Case No. 2011-203410
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 29 Agosto 2018
    ...of Wife's consolidated appeals, we reversed several findings of the family court and remanded for a new trial. Stoney v. Stoney , 417 S.C. 345, 790 S.E.2d 31 (Ct. App. 2016). Richard S.W. Stoney Sr. (Husband) and Theodore D. Stoney 425 S.C. 56Jr. (Brother) each petitioned for a writ of cert......
  • Murphy v. Murphy, Appellate Case No. 2015-000676
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 26 Julio 2017
    ...amount to an abuse of discretion, which means they Page 5derive from an error of law or lack adequate factual support. Stoney v. Stoney, 417 S.C. 345, 368-69, 790 S.E.2d 31, 43 (Ct. App. 2016).A.Wife argues the family court erred in its award of equitable distribution. She asserts she is en......
  • Murphy v. Murphy, 2017-UP-318
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 26 Julio 2017
    ...if they amount to an abuse of discretion, which means they derive from an error of law or lack adequate factual support. Stoney v. Stoney, 417 S.C. 345, 368-69, 790 S.E.2d 31, 43 (Ct. App. 2016). A. Wife argues the family court erred in its award of equitable distribution. She asserts she i......
  • Murphy v. Murphy, 2017-UP-318
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 26 Julio 2017
    ...if they amount to an abuse of discretion, which means they derive from an error of law or lack adequate factual support. Stoney v. Stoney, 417 S.C. 345, 368-69, 790 S.E.2d 31, 43 (Ct. App. 2016). A. Wife argues the family court erred in its award of equitable distribution. She asserts she i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Stoney v. Stoney, Appellate Case No. 2011-203410
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 29 Agosto 2018
    ...of Wife's consolidated appeals, we reversed several findings of the family court and remanded for a new trial. Stoney v. Stoney , 417 S.C. 345, 790 S.E.2d 31 (Ct. App. 2016). Richard S.W. Stoney Sr. (Husband) and Theodore D. Stoney 425 S.C. 56Jr. (Brother) each petitioned for a writ of cert......
  • Murphy v. Murphy, Appellate Case No. 2015-000676
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 26 Julio 2017
    ...amount to an abuse of discretion, which means they Page 5derive from an error of law or lack adequate factual support. Stoney v. Stoney, 417 S.C. 345, 368-69, 790 S.E.2d 31, 43 (Ct. App. 2016).A.Wife argues the family court erred in its award of equitable distribution. She asserts she is en......
  • Murphy v. Murphy, 2017-UP-318
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 26 Julio 2017
    ...if they amount to an abuse of discretion, which means they derive from an error of law or lack adequate factual support. Stoney v. Stoney, 417 S.C. 345, 368-69, 790 S.E.2d 31, 43 (Ct. App. 2016). A. Wife argues the family court erred in its award of equitable distribution. She asserts she i......
  • Murphy v. Murphy, 2017-UP-318
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 26 Julio 2017
    ...if they amount to an abuse of discretion, which means they derive from an error of law or lack adequate factual support. Stoney v. Stoney, 417 S.C. 345, 368-69, 790 S.E.2d 31, 43 (Ct. App. 2016). A. Wife argues the family court erred in its award of equitable distribution. She asserts she i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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