Delisle v. Delisle

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Delisle v. Delisle

DecidedSeptember 25, 2013

Docket2013-UP-359

StatusUnpublished

This text of Delisle v. Delisle (Delisle v. Delisle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Delisle v. Delisle, (S.C. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

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

Dale Delisle, Respondent,

v.

Cheryl Delisle, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-210586

Appeal From Aiken County Vicki J. Snelgrove, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-359 Heard September 9, 2013 – Filed September 25, 2013

REVERSED

Mark John Devine, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Bradford M. Owensby, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this family court action, Cheryl Delisle appeals the family court's order finding her in contempt. We reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Sowell, 370 S.C. 330, 336, 635 S.E.2d 81, 83 (2006) ("In order to sustain a finding of contempt, the record must be clear and specific as to the acts or conduct upon which such finding is based."); Edwards v. Edwards, 254 S.C. 466, 468, 176 S.E.2d 123, 124 (1970) (finding contempt rests from the willful disobedience of an order of the court, and before a person may be held in contempt, the record must be clear and specific as to the acts or conduct upon which such finding is based). In light of our holding, the remaining directives in the order, including the award of attorney's fees, are likewise reversed.

REVERSED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

Dale Delisle, Respondent,

v.

Cheryl Delisle, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-210586

Appeal From Aiken County Vicki J. Snelgrove, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-359 Heard September 9, 2013 – Filed September 25, 2013

REVERSED

Mark John Devine, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Bradford M. Owensby, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this family court action, Cheryl Delisle appeals the family court's order finding her in contempt. We reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Sowell, 370 S.C. 330, 336, 635 S.E.2d 81, 83 (2006) ("In order to sustain a finding of contempt, the record must be clear and specific as to the acts or conduct upon which such finding is based."); Edwards v. Edwards, 254 S.C. 466, 468, 176 S.E.2d 123, 124 (1970) (finding contempt rests from the willful disobedience of an order of the court, and before a person may be held in contempt, the record must be clear and specific as to the acts or conduct upon which such finding is based). In light of our holding, the remaining directives in the order, including the award of attorney's fees, are likewise reversed.

REVERSED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Delisle v. Delisle, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delisle-v-delisle-scctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack