Jimmy Boykin v. Zady Burton ( 2022 )

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
Jimmy Boykin, Respondent,
v.
Zady Burton, individually and as Personal Representative
of the Estate of Helen Burton, and Sandy Boykin a/k/a
Sandy Boykin, Jr., Defendants,
Of whom Zady Burton is the Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2019-001508
Appeal From Kershaw County
Robert E. Hood, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-111
Submitted February 1, 2022 – Filed March 16, 2022
AFFIRMED
Spencer Andrew Syrett, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Moultrie B. Burns, Jr., of Savage Royall & Sheheen, of
Camden, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Zady Burton appeals the circuit court's order finding him in civil
contempt. On appeal, Burton argues the circuit court erred by (1) finding him in
contempt, (2) basing its ruling on evidence not before the court or arguments of
counsel, (3) ruling in the absence of evidence, (4) failing to allow Ms. Burton to
testify, (5) failing to make findings of fact or conclusions of law, (6) awarding
attorney's fees to Jimmy Boykin, (7) awarding interest to Boykin, and (8) making
any finding concerning the May 14, 2018 letter of transmission. We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.
1. As to issues 1, 2, and 3, the exhibits to Boykin's complaint in support of his rule
to show cause and Boykin's subsequently filed March 13, 2019 affidavit support a
finding of contempt. See Spartanburg Buddhist Ctr. of S.C. v. Ork, 417 S.C. 601,
606, 790 S.E.2d 430, 433 (Ct. App. 2016) ("On appeal, this [c]ourt should reverse
the contempt decision only if it is without evidentiary support or the circuit court
abused its discretion." (quoting Ex parte Cannon, 385 S.C. 643, 660, 685 S.E.2d
814, 823 (Ct. App. 2009))).
2. As to issue 4, this issue is not preserved for appellate review because it was not
raised to or ruled on by the circuit court. See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71,
76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for
the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial
judge to be preserved for appellate review.").
3. As to issue 5, the circuit court substantially complied with Rule 52(a), SCRCP.
See Rule 52(a), SCRCP ("In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with
an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its
conclusions of law thereon . . . ."); In re Treatment & Care of Luckabaugh, 351
S.C. 122, 131, 568 S.E.2d 338, 342 (2002) ("The rule is directorial in nature so
'where a trial court substantially complies with Rule 52(a) and adequately states
the basis for the result it reaches, the appellate court should not vacate the trial
court's judgment for lack of an explicit or specific factual finding.'" (quoting
Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 123-24 (1991))).
4. As to issue 6, the circuit court did not err by awarding Boykin attorney's fees
because Burton was in contempt and his willful failure to comply with the order
resulted in additional costs. See Ex parte Cannon, 385 S.C. at 667, 685 S.E.2d at
827 ("Courts, by exercising their contempt power, can award [attorneys'] fees
under a compensatory contempt theory." (alteration in original) (quoting
Cheap-O's Truck Stop, Inc. v. Cloyd, 350 S.C. 596, 609, 567 S.E.2d 514, 520 (Ct.
App. 2002))).
5. As to issue 7, we find this issue is without merit. There is evidence to support
the circuit court's award of interest. Specifically, Boykin filed an affidavit on
March 13, 2019—two months before the hearing—attesting he had been trying to
close on the property since May 11, 2018, when he borrowed the additional money
needed to close. He further attested he had paid $1,893.57 in interest unnecessarily
at that time. Additionally, following the contempt hearing, Boykin's attorney filed
an affidavit of attorney's fees and an updated amount of interest—$2,138.34—
which is the amount of interest the circuit court awarded.
6. As to issue 8, this issue is not preserved for appellate review because it was not
raised to or ruled on by the circuit court. See Wilder Corp., 330 S.C. at 76, 497
S.E.2d at 733 ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be
preserved for appellate review.").
AFFIRMED.1
GEATHERS and HILL, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.