Wilson v. Jefferies

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

Jamar Wilson, Appellant,

v.

Nadiah Jefferies, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-002259

Appeal From Cherokee County
James F. Fraley, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-253
Submitted March 1, 2018 – Filed June 13, 2018

AFFIRMED

Donald Loren Smith, of Attorney Office of Donald
Smith, of Anderson, for Appellant.

Nadiah Jefferies, of Gaffney, pro se.

PER CURIAM: Jamar Wilson appeals the family court's refusal to issue a rule to
show cause against Nadiah Jefferies. We affirm.1

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
According to the rule to show cause that Wilson requested the family court to
issue, Jefferies was to appear before the family court to "show cause, if any, why
[she] should not be held in [c]ontempt of [c]ourt for willfully violating the
provisions of an [o]rder of this court as alleged in the verified [c]omplaint attached
thereto." In his verified complaint for contempt, however, Wilson did not set forth
any allegations that would support a finding that Jefferies violated a court order.
Rather, he alleged Jefferies falsely represented to the family court she had
childcare expenses and the amount of child support he was ordered to pay her was
based on this fraudulent information.

We therefore affirm the family court's refusal to issue the requested rule to show
cause pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code
Ann. § 63-3-530(A)(13) (2010) (providing the family court has exclusive
jurisdiction "in all cases or proceedings within the county against persons charged
with failure to obey an order of the court made pursuant to authority conferred by
law"); Rule 14(a), SCRFC ("Except for direct contempt of court, contempt of court
proceedings shall be initiated only by a rule to show cause duly issued and served
in accordance with the provisions thereof."); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-3-620 (2010 &
Supp. 2017) ("An adult who willfully violates, neglects, or refuses to obey or
perform a lawful order of the court, or who violates any provision of this chapter,
may be proceeded against for contempt of court."); Rule 14(c), SCFRC (requiring
a rule to show cause, unless issued by the family court sua sponte, to be "based
upon and supported by an affidavit or verified petition" that "identif[ies] the court
order, decree or judgment which the responding party has allegedly violated, the
specific act(s) or omissions(s) which constitute contempt, and the specific relief
which the moving party is seeking"); Henderson v. Puckett, 316 S.C. 171, 173, 447
S.E.2d 871, 872 (Ct. App. 1994) ("A trial 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.").

AFFIRMED.

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