Dearybury v. Dearybury

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

Dan Anthony Dearybury, Appellant,

v.

Wanda Kim Green Dearybury, a/k/a Kim Fellner,
Respondent.

IN RE:

Dan Anthony Dearybury, Plaintiff,

v.

Wanda Kim Green Dearbury, Defendant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001206

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-159
Submitted March 1, 2018 – Filed April 18, 2018

AFFIRMED

David Alan Wilson, of Wilson & Englebardt, LLC, of
Greenville, for Appellant.
William Hardwick Rhodes and Richard H. Rhodes, both
of Burts Turner & Rhodes, of Spartanburg, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011)
("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de
novo."); Lewis v. Lewis, 400 S.C. 354, 361, 734 S.E.2d 322, 325 (Ct. App. 2012)
("[W]hile this court has the authority to find facts in accordance with its own view
of the preponderance of the evidence, 'we recognize the superior position of the
family court . . . in making credibility determinations.'" (quoting Lewis v. Lewis,
392 S.C. 381, 392, 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011))); id. ("Further, de novo review
does not relieve an appellant of his burden to 'demonstrate error in the family
court's findings of fact.'" (quoting Lewis, 392 S.C. at 392, 709 S.E.2d at 655)); Ex
parte Capital U-Drive-It, Inc., 369 S.C. 1, 12, 630 S.E.2d 464, 470 (2006) ("In
deciding whether to seal or unseal a court record, the court must . . . weigh the
need for secrecy against the right of access. The burden is on the party who seeks
to overcome the presumption of access to show that the interest in secrecy
outweighs the presumption."); id. ("The court must consider the following factors,
pursuant to . . . Rule 41.1, SCRCP: (1) ensuring the parties' right to a fair trial or
hearing; (2) the need for witness cooperation; (3) the reliance of the parties upon
expectations of confidentiality of the proceeding; (4) the public or professional
significance of the proceeding; (5) the perceived harm to the parties from
disclosure; (6) why alternatives other than sealing the documents are not available
to protect legitimate private interests; and (7) why the public interest . . . is best
served by sealing the documents. In addition, the court may consider (8) public
interest in the proceeding; (9) the private or public status of the litigants and case
generally; (10) whether release would enhance the public's understanding of an
important historical event; (11) whether the public already has access to
information contained in the records; (12) whether a particular decision will sustain
or offend the fundamental interests of public access, and any other relevant
factors."); Rule 41.1(b), SCRCP ("In family court matters, the judge shall also
consider whether documents: 1) contain material which may expose private
financial matters which could adversely affect the parties; and/or 2) relate to
sensitive custody issues, and shall specifically balance the special interests of the
child or children involved in the family court matter.").
AFFIRMED.1

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

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