Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-324 - Cantrell v. Watts

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Robert J. Cantrell,        Appellant,

v.

Carol C. Watts, F/K/A Carol C. Cantrell,        Respondent.


Appeal From Anderson County
Tommy B. Edwards, Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-324
Submitted March 19, 2004 – Filed May 14, 2004


AFFIRMED


Charles W. Whiten, of Anderson, for Appellant.

Carolyn G. Baird, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Robert Cantrell appeals, arguing the trial court erred by holding him in contempt of court for failing to take a drug test within 10 days as required by court order.  We affirm.1

LAW/ANALYSIS

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  I. As to the contempt order: see Wilson v. Walker, 340 S.C. 531, 537, 532 S.E.2d 19, 21-22 (Ct. App. 2000) (noting that in an appeal from an order of the family court, this court has jurisdiction to find facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence; however, this court is not required to disregard the trial judge’s findings who saw and heard the witnesses and was in a better position to evaluate their credibility); State v. Bevilacqua, 316 S.C. 122, 129, 447 S.E.2d 213, 217 (Ct. App. 1994) (“A determination of contempt ordinarily resides in the sound discretion of the trial judge.”).  II. As to the willfulness of Cantrell’s actions: see S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1350 (Supp. 2003) (“An adult who willfully violates, neglects, or refuses to obey or perform a lawful order of the court . . . may be proceeded against for contempt of court.”); Bevilacqua, 316 S.C. at 129, 447 S.E.2d at 217 (citing Spartanburg County Dep’t of Social Servs. v. Padgett, 296 S.C. 79, 82-83, 370 S.E.2d 872, 874 (1988)) (“A willful act is defined as 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.’ ”) 

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.


1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rules 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.