Christopher Clampitt v. Stacey Clampitt ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • 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 Court of Appeals
    Christopher A. Clampitt, Appellant,
    v.
    Stacey T. Clampitt, Respondent.
    Appellate Case No. 2020-001537
    Appeal From Lexington County
    Mindy W. Zimmerman, Family Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-331
    Heard September 11, 2023 – Filed October 11, 2023
    AFFIRMED
    David Kellum Allen, of The Allen Law Firm, P.A, of
    West Columbia, for Appellant.
    Bruce Wyche Bannister and Julie Elizabeth McCool,
    both of Bannister, Wyatt & Stalvey, LLC, of Greenville,
    for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Christopher A. Clampitt (Husband) appeals the family court's
    order finding him in contempt of temporary orders and awarding attorney's fees
    and costs to Stacey T. Clampitt (Wife). We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b),
    SCACR, and the following authorities:
    1. We hold the family court did not err in finding Husband in contempt for failing
    (1) to disclose all financial documents as required by the September 11, 2017,
    consent pendente lite order (Temporary Order), and (2) to maintain funds in the
    family business's account for Wife's biweekly salary and the household bills as
    required by the March 29, 2018, supplemental temporary order modifying the
    Temporary Order. See Ex parte Cannon, 
    385 S.C. 643
    , 660, 
    685 S.E.2d 814
    , 824
    (Ct. App. 2009) ("Contempt results from the willful disobedience of a court order,
    and before a court may find a person in contempt, the record must clearly and
    specifically reflect the contemptuous conduct." (quoting Widman v. Widman, 
    348 S.C. 97
    , 119, 
    557 S.E.2d 693
    , 705 (Ct. App. 2001))); 
    id. at 661
    , 685 S.E.2d at 824
    ("A willful act is one . . . done voluntarily and intentionally with the specific intent
    to do something the law forbids, or with the specific intent to fail to do something
    the law requires to be done; that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or
    disregard the law.'" (omission in original) (quoting Miller v. Miller, 
    375 S.C. 443
    ,
    454, 
    652 S.E.2d 754
    , 759-60 (Ct. App. 2007))); Brasington v. Shannon, 
    288 S.C. 183
    , 184, 
    341 S.E.2d 130
    , 131 (1986) ("In a proceeding for contempt for violation
    of a court order, the moving party must show the existence of the order, and the
    facts establishing the respondent's noncompliance."); Miller, 375 S.C. at 454, 652
    S.E.2d at 760 ("Once the moving party has made out a prima facie case, the burden
    then shifts to the respondent to establish his or her defense and inability to comply
    with the order." (quoting Widman, 348 S.C. at 120, 557 S.E.2d at 705)); Bogan v.
    Bogan, 
    298 S.C. 139
    , 142, 
    378 S.E.2d 606
    , 608 (Ct. App. 1989) ("The language
    used in a decree must be given its ordinary and commonly accepted meaning.");
    Campione v. Best, 
    435 S.C. 451
    , 460, 
    868 S.E.2d 378
    , 382 (Ct. App. 2021) ("In the
    contempt context, failure to obey is not excused just because a party dons blinders
    and convinces himself a court order does not mean what it plainly says."), cert.
    denied, S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated Sept. 8, 2022.
    2. We hold the family court did not err in awarding Wife attorney's fees and expert
    fees. See Miller, 375 S.C. at 463, 652 S.E.2d at 764 ("Courts, by exercising their
    contempt power, can award attorney's fees under a compensatory contempt
    theory."); id. ("Compensatory contempt seeks to reimburse the party for the costs it
    incurs in forcing the non-complying party to obey the court's orders."); Buist v.
    Buist, 
    410 S.C. 569
    , 576, 
    766 S.E.2d 381
    , 384 (2014) (stating an objection to an
    award of attorney's fees is not preserved unless the objecting party raised the
    specific objection either at trial or in a motion to alter or amend pursuant to Rule
    59(e), SCRCP).
    AFFIRMED.
    HEWITT and VERDIN, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2023-UP-331

Filed Date: 10/11/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024