Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-168 - Marcantoni v. Johnson

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

Lynn Marcantoni, Appellant,

v.

Michael Johnson, Respondent.


Appeal From Aiken County
Peter R. Nuessle, Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-168
Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed March 7, 2012


AFFIRMED


Mark J. Devine and Bruce B. I. Hoover, both of Aiken, for Appellant.

Aaron G. Walsh, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Lynn Marcantoni appeals the family court's order on her rule to show cause motion, arguing the family court abused its discretion in not finding Michael Johnson in contempt because clear and convincing evidence existed to show that he was in willful contempt.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the family court erred in finding Johnson was not in willful contempt for failure to pay Marcantoni alimony: Tracy v. Tracy, 384 S.C. 91, 96, 682 S.E.2d 14, 17 (Ct. App. 2009) ("A [family] court's determination regarding contempt is subject to reversal where it is based on findings that are without evidentiary support or where there has been an abuse of discretion.  An abuse of discretion occurs either when the court is controlled by some error of law or where the order, based upon findings of fact, lacks evidentiary support." (citation and quotation marks omitted)); Pittman v. Pittman, 395 S.C. 209, 217-18, 717 S.E.2d 88, 92 (Ct. App. 2011) (finding the appellate court can make its own findings of fact if the record is sufficient, even if the family court failed to set forth specific findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its decision); Hawkins v. Mullins, 359 S.C. 497, 501, 597 S.E.2d 897, 899 (Ct. App. 2004) ("A party may be found in contempt of court for the willful violation of a lawful court order."); Abate v. Abate, 377 S.C. 548, 553, 660 S.E.2d 515, 518 (Ct. App. 2008) ("Contempt results from a willful disobedience of a court order. Willful disobedience requires an act to be 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." (citation and quotation marks omitted)). 

2.  As to whether the family court failed to make conclusions of law as required by Rule 52(a), SCRCP: In re Treatment & Care of Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. 122, 152, 568 S.E.2d 338, 353 (2002) (finding a party must raise a deficiency concerning an order's failure to comply with the standards of Rule 52(a), SCRCP, in a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to the trial court in order to preserve the issue for appeal). 

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.