Charlene Green v. Lawrence Green, Jr.

Opinion

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

Charlene Green, Respondent,

v.

Lawrence Green, Jr., Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2024-001744

Appeal From Charleston County Michèle Patrão Forsythe, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-357 Submitted June 1, 2026 – Filed July 8, 2026 Withdrawn, Substituted, and Refiled August 26, 2026

AFFIRMED

Gregory Samuel Forman, of Gregory S. Forman, PC, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Yvonne Renee Murray-Boyles, of The Law Office of Yvonne-Murray-Boyles, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Lawrence Green, Jr. (Husband) appeals the family court's dismissal of Charlene Green's (Wife's) claim for separate support and maintenance against him pursuant to the 365-day rule.1 On appeal, Husband argues the family court erred in dismissing the case because the cancellation of mediation sessions by Wife prevented him from submitting a final hearing request prior to the 365-day benchmark. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold the family court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case. See Stoney v. Stoney, 425 S.C. 47, 62, 819 S.E.2d 201, 209 (Ct. App. 2018) (providing that on appeal from the family court, an appellate court reviews factual and legal issues de novo but review procedural rulings for an abuse of discretion); Patel v. Patel, 359 S.C. 515, 529, 599 S.E.2d 114, 121 (2004) ("An abuse of discretion occurs either when a court is controlled by some error of law, or where the order is based upon findings of fact lacking evidentiary support."); Rickerson v. Karl, 412 S.C. 215, 219, 770 S.E.2d 767, 770 (Ct. App. 2015) ("The party appealing the order has the burden of establishing that the trial court abused its discretion."). Wife filed a complaint on April 13, 2023, and the case was set to be dismissed on April 13, 2024. However, on April 30, 2024, the family court granted Wife's motion requesting a 120-day extension, which extended the case to August 28, 2024. Husband failed to file his request for a final hearing within the 365-day deadline and 120-day extension. 2 Thus, we hold the family court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case. See RE: Family Court Benchmark, S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated July 24, 2020 ("[A]ll domestic relations and juvenile cases in the State of South Carolina, with the exception of DSS Abuse and Neglect cases, shall be disposed of within 365 days of their filing."); id. (explaining a case may be dismissed without prejudice if the clerk of court does not receive a written request for a final hearing within 365 days of the date the case was filed and there is no other order extending the case); id. ("Once a case older than 365 days has been scheduled for a final hearing, only the Chief Administrative Judge for the circuit court or county may continue it . . . ."); Bristol v. Lipnevicius, 444 S.C. 373, 392, 906 S.E.2d 618, 629 (Ct. App. 2024) ("[T]he provisions of the [Family Court Benchmark order] exist as an incentive to parties to comply with its requirements.").

1 See RE: Family Court Benchmark, S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated July 24, 2020 ("[A]ll domestic relations and juvenile cases in the State of South Carolina, with the exception of [Department of Social Services (DSS)] Abuse and Neglect cases, shall be disposed of within 365 days of their filing."). 2 We note that in the family court's April 30, 2024 order, the family court noted it would dismiss the case without prejudice if the parties failed to reach a final agreement by September 28, 2024.

AFFIRMED.3

WILLIAMS, C.J., and KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., concur.

3 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.