Thompson v. Swicegood
| Decision Date | 01 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | Opinion No. 5736,Appellate Case No. 2015-001860 |
| Parties | Polly Thompson, Respondent, v. Cathy Swicegood, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Appeal From Oconee County
Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge
Ellis B. Drew, Jr., Master-in-Equity
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
John G. Reckenbeil, of Law Office of John G. Reckenbeil, L.L.C., of Mauldin, and J. Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Appellant.
Margaret A. Chamberlain, of Chamberlain Law Firm, LLC, of Greenville, and Melissa Hope Moore, of Law Office of Melissa H. Moore, LLC, of Fountain Inn, for Respondent.
Cathy Swicegood appeals the master-in-equity's order of partition, arguing the master erred by (1) refusing to consider the issue of the parties' alleged common-law marriage and stay the action pending a resolution of that issue in family court, (2) excluding evidence proving her contributions to jointly owned real property, (3) determining her contribution to such property, and (4) failing to apply the correct analysis when determining the parties' interests in the property. We affirm as modified.
Polly Thompson filed this action in circuit court for partition and ouster in March 2014. She alleged she and Swicegood held title to two properties—a home in Westminster, South Carolina (the Lake Hartwell home) and a condominium in Hilton Head, South Carolina (the Hilton Head condo)—as joint tenants. Thompson alleged she was entitled to sole ownership and title as to both properties.
Swicegood then filed a summons and complaint in family court alleging a common-law marriage existed between the parties and seeking, among other things, recognition of the separation of the parties, an award of separate support and maintenance, and equitable division of marital property.1 Swicegood moved to dismiss or, alternatively, stay the partition action, arguing she sought an order from the family court declaring she and Thompson were married by common law. Thereafter, the family court dismissed Swicegood's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that pursuant to the then-existing laws banning same-sex marriage in this state, no common-law marriage existed as a matter of law. Swicegood appealed the family court's order.2 Meanwhile, in October 2014, the circuit court denied Swicegood's motion to dismiss or stay the partition action, finding there was no just cause for granting a stay. The court reasoned in part that Thompson filed her petition in circuit court first and Swicegood's subsequent filing in family court did not remove jurisdiction from the circuit court.
The partition action proceeded to a hearing before the master-in-equity in March 2015. At the outset of the hearing, Thompson moved to exclude any evidence or argument concerning whether the parties were married and any evidence regarding "sweat equity" in any property other than the two properties at issue in the partition action. Swicegood again moved to stay the proceeding, arguing that after the family court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the circuit court denied her previous motion to stay, the United States District Courthad overturned South Carolina's statutory prohibition of same-sex marriage.3 The master denied Swicegood's motion to stay and granted Thompson's motion to exclude evidence of the alleged marriage, reasoning he expressed no opinion as to whether there was a marriage, and even if there were, the matter was "still a partition action" according to the pleadings. Swicegood argued she was entitled to sweat equity because during the thirteen-year relationship, a significant amount of assets and sweat equity culminated into the purchase of these properties and she "and others" took actions to bring value to these properties. However, the master granted Thompson's motion to exclude evidence of any sweat equity Swicegood may have had in any property other than the Lake Hartwell home or Hilton Head condo.
Thompson purchased the Hilton Head condo in June 2013 for $372,500. The deed listed both parties as owners. Thompson paid the down payment with an inheritance she received from her parents, and Swicegood contributed no funds. The mortgage on the Hilton Head condo was in Thompson's name only, and she paid all of the mortgage payments on the property as well as all regime fees, insurance premiums, utility bills, and fitness club fees. According to Thompson, the Hilton Head condo required some improvements, such as wallpaper removal, painting, plumbing repair, and replacing light fixtures, switches, and the washer and dryer. She stated she paid for all of the labor and construction associated with these improvements, and although she acknowledged Swicegood performed some of this labor, she stated she paid Swicegood for her work. Thompson explained she rented out the Hilton Head condo when possible and had earned $22,000 in rental income since purchasing the home. Thompson testified she contributed $142,477.01, less the rental income, to the Hilton Head condo.
The Lake Hartwell home consisted of two lots: Lot 58 and Lot 59. Thompson purchased the first lot, Lot 59, in May 2010 for $38,500; she paid a down payment of $10,209.98 and obtained a mortgage for the balance of the purchase price. Thompson purchased the second lot, Lot 58, in July 2012 for $35,000 and paid the full purchase price with her inheritance. Thompson then had a home constructed on the lots. Swicegood contributed $22,000 of the total $28,678.43 down payment on the construction of the home, and Thompson contributed the remaining $6,678.43. Thompson obtained a mortgage for the remaining $151,500 of the purchase price. She testified the $10,209.98 and $6,678.43 she paid for the purchase and construction of the Lake Hartwell home came from her checkingaccount, and none of those funds came from Swicegood. Additionally, Thompson paid all mortgage payments, homeowners' association fees, taxes, and insurance premiums on the property. She explained she hired a builder to build the home and paid for other construction and improvements to the property. Thompson stated she paid $42,735.41 for the construction and improvements, including $7,000 paid on Swicegood's Lowe's credit card and several checks for Swicegood's labor. Thompson again acknowledged Swicegood performed some labor and agreed she was often present during the building of the Lake Hartwell home but insisted she paid Swicegood for this work.
Swicegood moved into the Lake Hartwell home in December 2013 after the couple separated. Thompson alleged Swicegood changed the locks and denied her entry to the home thereafter. During this time, Thompson continued to pay the mortgage, homeowner's association fees, insurance, and taxes on the home. She claimed $14,143.77 in damages due to Swicegood's ouster but later stipulated she sent Swicegood a letter in December 2013 giving her permission to live there.
Thompson stated that in exchange for Swicegood's work on the Hilton Head condo, she gave her a 2009 Buick and paid her with checks. She conceded Swicegood paid her $9,500 for the Buick but stated it was worth "at least $18,000." Thompson acknowledged she previously owned a villa in Hilton Head, which she purchased in 2003 with proceeds from the sale of stock she owned. She stated she sold this property in December 2013, it was titled in her name only, and no funds from its sale were applied to any other purchase. Thompson admitted Swicegood transferred title in property she owned to Thompson by quitclaim deed in 2010. Although the master refused to admit evidence concerning this transfer, Thompson acknowledged the $22,000 Swicegood contributed to the purchase of the Lake Hartwell home came from the sale of that property.
Swicegood testified she operated a business that provided landscaping and interior design services. She stated she and Thompson continually tried to "flip" properties in order to have "nice places" to live in upon retirement. Swicegood attempted to explain she contributed labor to the villa that Thompson previously owned, and Thompson objected. Swicegood conceded, acknowledging the master's earlier ruling. Swicegood explained she removed carpet, painted, changed outlets and switches, created window treatments, covered cornice boards, and replaced new toilets, faucets, and towel racks in the Hilton Head condo. She stated she had furniture reupholstered, purchased bedding, and decorated. Swicegood testified it took seven days to flip the condo. She stated she paid someone $1,300 to complete plumbing and electrical work. Swicegood testified she also touched up paint andreplaced light bulbs when she stayed at the Hilton Head condo. She provided an "invoice," consisting of a summary of the work she completed at the Hilton Head condo, which totaled $17,490. Of this amount, Swicegood estimated she was owed $5,910.91. However, she admitted the invoice was not created at the time the work was done; rather, she "rewrote" all of her invoices for use at the hearing. Swicegood confirmed she had no documentation showing her payment for any of the materials listed on the invoice. She averred the refurbishing of the Hilton Head condo allowed the parties to earn higher rental income on the property. Swicegood testified she "drew the plans" for the Lake Hartwell home and was present at the home "every single day" during its construction. She agreed Thompson had paid her for work on the Lake Hartwell home and the Hilton Head condo, but she denied she had been paid for all of her work. Swicegood identified several checks she received from Thompson. She agreed the checks ranged from $1,000 and $5,000 but stated some checks were for materials. She acknowledged Thompson paid her "to handle the affairs" during the building of the Lake Hartwell home in Thompson's place. Swicegood admitted she changed the locks at the Lake Hartwell home after she moved in because Thompson continued to come to...
To continue reading
Request your trial