Summary
The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed and remanded a Court of Appeals decision in a family-law matter because the Court of Appeals applied or referenced an abuse-of-discretion standard rather than the required de novo standard of review. The court reiterated that de novo review applies in family court appeals, while preserving the trial judge’s superior position regarding witness credibility and the appellant’s burden to show that the preponderance of the evidence is against the trial court’s findings.
Holdings
- The proper standard of appellate review in family court matters is de novo review, not abuse-of-discretion review.
Questions Presented
- What standard of review governs appeals from family court matters in South Carolina?
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred by applying or repeatedly invoking an abuse-of-discretion standard rather than conducting de novo review.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (14)
- Stoney v. Stoney, 417 S.C. 345, 790 S.E.2d 31 (Ct. App. 2016)(reversed)
- Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 709 S.E.2d 650 (2011)(followed)
- Dorman v. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 350 S.C. 159, 565 S.E.2d 119 (Ct. App. 2002)(cited)
- McKinney v. Pedery, 413 S.C. 475, 776 S.E.2d 566 (2015)(cited)
- Crossland v. Crossland, 408 S.C. 443, 759 S.E.2d 419 (2014)(cited)
- Wilburn v. Wilburn, 403 S.C. 372, 743 S.E.2d 734 (2013)(cited)
- Woods v. Woods, 418 S.C. 100, 790 S.E.2d 906 (Ct. App. 2016)(cited)
- Ricigliano v. Ricigliano, 413 S.C. 319, 775 S.E.2d 701 (Ct. App. 2015)(cited)
- Srivastava v. Srivastava, 411 S.C. 481, 769 S.E.2d 442 (Ct. App. 2015)(cited)
- Hawkins v. Hawkins, 403 S.C. 228, 742 S.E.2d 677 (Ct. App. 2013)(cited)
Showing top 10 of 14.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…