Delisle v. Delisle ( 2013 )

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
Dale Delisle, Respondent,
v.
Cheryl Delisle, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2012-210586
Appeal From Aiken County
Vicki J. Snelgrove, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-359
Heard September 9, 2013 – Filed September 25, 2013
REVERSED
Mark John Devine, of Charleston, for Appellant.
Bradford M. Owensby, of Aiken, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: In this family court action, Cheryl Delisle appeals the family
court's order finding her in contempt. We reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Sowell, 370 S.C. 330, 336, 635
S.E.2d 81, 83 (2006) ("In order to sustain a finding of contempt, the record must be
clear and specific as to the acts or conduct upon which such finding is based.");
Edwards v. Edwards, 254 S.C. 466, 468, 176 S.E.2d 123, 124 (1970) (finding
contempt rests from the willful disobedience of an order of the court, and before a
person may be held in contempt, the record must be clear and specific as to the acts
or conduct upon which such finding is based). In light of our holding, the
remaining directives in the order, including the award of attorney's fees, are
likewise reversed.
REVERSED.
SHORT, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.