Widdicombe v. Dupree

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Widdicombe v. Dupree

DecidedAugust 17, 2005

Docket2005-UP-490

StatusUnpublished

This text of Widdicombe v. Dupree (Widdicombe v. Dupree) 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

Widdicombe v. Dupree, (S.C. Ct. App. 2005).

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Robert Widdicombe, Respondent,

v.

Rachel P. Dupree, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County
Paul W. Garfinkel, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-490
Submitted August 1, 2005 Filed August 17, 2005

AFFIRMED

Rachel P. Tucker-Cales, of Mt. Pleasant, for Appellant.

Paul B. Ferrara, III, of Summerville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Rachel P. Tucker-Cales Dupree disputes a family court order finding her in contempt for failing to pay child support. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Haselden v. Haselden, 347 S.C. 48, 63, 552 S.E.2d 329, 337 (Ct. App. 2001) (defining contempt); Smith-Cooper v. Cooper, 344 S.C. 289, 300, 543 S.E.2d 271, 277 (Ct. App. 2001) (defining willful conduct); and Henderson v. Henderson, 298 S.C. 190, 197, 379 S.E.2d 125, 129 (1989) (holding that a finding of contempt is within the sound discretion of the family court judge). We find the issue of subject matter jurisdiction not properly before this court because it is the subject of another appeal currently pending before this court.

AFFIRMED.[1]

ANDERSON, HUFF, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Robert Widdicombe, Respondent,

v.

Rachel P. Dupree, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County
Paul W. Garfinkel, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-490
Submitted August 1, 2005 Filed August 17, 2005

AFFIRMED

Rachel P. Tucker-Cales, of Mt. Pleasant, for Appellant.

Paul B. Ferrara, III, of Summerville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Rachel P. Tucker-Cales Dupree disputes a family court order finding her in contempt for failing to pay child support. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Haselden v. Haselden, 347 S.C. 48, 63, 552 S.E.2d 329, 337 (Ct. App. 2001) (defining contempt); Smith-Cooper v. Cooper, 344 S.C. 289, 300, 543 S.E.2d 271, 277 (Ct. App. 2001) (defining willful conduct); and Henderson v. Henderson, 298 S.C. 190, 197, 379 S.E.2d 125, 129 (1989) (holding that a finding of contempt is within the sound discretion of the family court judge). We find the issue of subject matter jurisdiction not properly before this court because it is the subject of another appeal currently pending before this court.

AFFIRMED.[1]

ANDERSON, HUFF, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Widdicombe v. Dupree, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/widdicombe-v-dupree-scctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack