Capps v. Capps is an unpublished January 2024 opinion from the Court of Appeals. The Capps were previously married. Mr. Capps filed a contempt action alleging numerous violations. At trial, Ms. Capps was found in contempt on three of the issues he raised, fined $1,500, and ordered to pay $40,000 in attorney’s fees. Ms. Capps hired me to appeal.
One of the trial court reporters lost the data to construct part of the trial transcript. We sought a new trial but were instead directed to have the family court attempt to reconstruct the trial record. Ms. Capps argued the reconstruction was inaccurate and renewed her request for a new trial. The Court of Appeals rejected that request, find that the trial court’s “copious notes” were sufficient to reconstruct most of the missing record and the remaining missing portions were Mr. Capps’ cross-examination, which it found did “not appear to have been particularly beneficial to her.”
The Court of Appeals reversed two of the three contempt findings. It found Ms. Capps did not harass Mr. Capps by modifying her bank account to prohibit his deposit of her alimony payment. “The family court’s order did not specify the manner in which alimony payments must be paid or accepted, and the record demonstrates Husband refused to attempt to render the payment in alternative forms Wife suggested, including via certified mail.”
It reversed a holding that she harassed Mr. Capps “by failing to repair the brick columns at the parties’ former marital residence as well as by suggesting she would sue him in magistrate’s court.” The court held:
While Wife’s refusal to resolve the issue on terms that were satisfactory to Husband may have frustrated him, it was Wife’s right to determine the manner in which she would repair the column that Husband admitted he damaged. Additionally, she was entitled to pursue a legal remedy through the judicial system if she so chose. We conclude this conduct does not rise to the level of harassment as contemplated by the family court’s order and therefore reverse this finding.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding that Wife denigrated Husband to the parties’ children. It found “the testimony, texts, and audio recording of Husband and Wife’s confrontation regarding one daughter’s recording Husband provides clear and convincing evidence Wife discussed inappropriate topics in front of the parties’ daughters and encouraged the daughters’ lack of respect toward their father. Furthermore, the family court observed Wife’s testimony at this rule to show cause hearing, as well as a prior rule to show cause hearing, and found Wife to not be credible.”
Because it affirmed one of the three contempt findings, the Court of Appeals reduced Husband’s fee award to $13,333.33 while leaving the $1,500 court fine in place.
I encounter litigants, and sometimes even attorneys, who rest on their pleadings and motions (including returns to motions) to support their requests for
On January 29, 2025, the South Carolina Supreme Court proposed an amendment to Rule 21, SCFCR, to the South Carolina General Assembly. If
Is sex still an essential component of marriage?
Interesting article in today’s New York Times, She Was Faulted in Her Divorce for Refusing Sex. A European Court Disagreed. The article addresses