Ruff v. Nunez ( 2014 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(D)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
Mary Margaret Ruff, f/k/a Mary Margaret Nunez,
Petitioner,
v.
Samuel Nunez, Jr., Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2013-001801
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
Appeal From Greenville County
The Honorable Billy A. Tunstall, Jr., Family Court Judge
Memorandum Opinion No. 2014-MO-003
Submitted January 8, 2014 – Filed January 29, 2014
REVERSED IN PART
Dianne S. Riley, of Greenville, for Petitioner.
Bruce Wyche Bannister, of Bannister & Wyatt, LLC, of
Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review the Court of
Appeals' decision in Ruff v. Nunez, Op. No. 2013-UP-290 (S.C. Ct. App. filed June
26, 2013).
We deny the petition for a writ of certiorari as to all questions other than the
parties' responsibility for payment of transportation costs for visitation and
Guardian ad litem's fees. As to the issues of transportation costs for visitation and
Guardian ad litem's fees, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, dispense with
further briefing, and reverse the Court of Appeals' decision that petitioner is
responsible for all such costs.
At the final hearing, respondent proposed a visitation plan in which the parties
would split transportation costs for visitation equally. However, the family court
rejected this proposal and ordered that respondent only pay transportation costs for
respondent's two-week summer visitation with the child, and that petitioner pay all
other transportation costs, which required petitioner to pay a disproportionate
amount in transportation costs. Based on our de novo review of the evidence, we
find the family court abused its discretion in requiring petitioner to pay costs in the
amount set forth in its order, and we order that the parties split all visitation
transportation costs equally. See Argabright v. Argabright, 398 S.C. 176, 179, 727
S.E.2d 748, 750 (2012) (holding an appellate court has jurisdiction to find facts in
accordance with its view of the preponderance of the evidence); Cudd v. Arline,
277 S.C. 236, 239, 285 S.E.2d 881, 883 (1981) (holding an order concerning
visitation costs will be reversed where there is a clear abuse of discretion).
We further find the family court abused its discretion in ordering that petitioner is
required to pay all of the Guardian ad litem's fees, and we order that the parties
equally split the Guardian ad litem's fees. See Shirley v. Shirley, 342 S.C. 324,
341, 536 S.E.2d 427, 436 (Ct. App. 2000) (holding an award of Guardian ad litem
fees lies within the sound discretion of the family court and will not be disturbed
on appeal absent an abuse of discretion).
REVERSED IN PART.
TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ.,
concur.