Joy v. Sheppard is an unpublished February 2001 opinion from the South Carolina Court of Appeals.  This case stemmed from a determination of paternity action brought by Ms. Joy.  After the initial DNA testing indicated that Mr. Sheppard was not the father of the child at issue, the parties entered a consent order finding that he was not the father.  A few days before the one-year deadline to reopen a case based on fraud, Ms. Joy filed a motion asking the court to reopen the case, claiming that Mr. Sheppard had someone else provide a DNA sample in his place, and asking for new DNA testing.

At the motion hearing the family court refused to find that Mr. Sheppard committed fraud. However, concerned about irregularities in the test, the court ordered new DNA testing.  Mr. Sheppard appealed and his trial counsel retained me to handle the appeal.

Typically orders awarding a new trial are immediately appealable and on appeal neither party challenged Mr. Sheppard’s right to appeal the lower court’s order.  However, after briefing and oral argument, the Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal.  It held that the lower court’s order did not actually reopen the case but merely required Mr. Sheppard to engage in discovery.  Because discovery orders are not immediately appealable, the Court of Appeals dismissed Mr. Sheppard’s appeal.

Put Mr. Forman’s experience, knowledge, and dedication to your service for any of your South Carolina family law needs.

Recent Blog Posts

Before she was the Notorious RBG

I try to keep my politics out of my legal blog and, in the week since United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader

[ + ] Read More

Court of Appeals rejects father’s numerous challenges to custody and support modification decision

The August 26, 2020 Court of Appeals case of Whitesell v. Whitesell finds the Appellant making numerous legal arguments, a few of them

[ + ] Read More

Court of Appeals reopens equitable distribution due to “fraud upon the court”

The August 26, 2020, Court of Appeals opinion in Sanders v. Smith presents an unusual resolution of a Rule 60 motion. Husband filed

[ + ] Read More