Westfall v. Westfall

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

David Westfall, Appellant,

v.

Stephanie Westfall, Respondent.

Appeal From Fairfield County

Brian M. Gibbons, Walter B. Brown, Jr.,
and

Donna S. Strom, Family Court Judges

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-402

Submitted September 1, 2010 – Filed
September 14, 2010

AFFIRMED

David Westfall, of Hopkins, for Appellant. 

Michael E. Atwater, of Rock Hill, for
Respondent.

Thomas M. Neal, III, of Columbia, Guardian
Ad Litem. 

PER CURIAM:  David Westfall (Husband) appeals the
family court's order dismissing his action for divorce against Stephanie
Westfall (Wife), as well as several other prior orders.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. With
regard to the family court's denial of Husband's motion for default judgment:  S.C.
Code Ann. § 20-3-10 (1985) (listing adultery and habitual drunkenness, which
includes the habitual use of any narcotic drug, as grounds for divorce); Rule
17, SCRFC (deferring to the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure for the
procedure for entry of a default judgment but allowing defendant to be "heard
at the merits hearing on issues of custody of children, visitation, alimony,
support, equitable distribution, and counsel fees"); Rule 55, SCRCP
(establishing procedure for seeking a default judgment that requires
procurement of a clerk's entry of default and a subsequent hearing by the court
to enter the judgment and providing "[i]f, in order to enable the court to
enter judgment or to carry it into effect, it is necessary . . . to establish
the truth of any averment by evidence or to make an investigation of any other
matter, the court may conduct such hearing or order such references as it deems
necessary and proper . . ."); Watson v. Watson, 319 S.C. 92, 94,
460 S.E.2d 394, 395 (1995) (requiring plaintiff in a divorce action to prove
his grounds for divorce as well as pleading them). 

2. With
regard to the family court's dismissal of Husband's action for divorce:  Re:  Family Court Benchmark, S.C. Sup. Ct. order dated May 9, 2006 (mandating all
domestic relations cases "shall be disposed of within 365 days of their
filing" and assigning oversight of all family court cases older than
365 days and for which no final hearing has been requested to the Chief
Administrative Judge for the county in which they were filed) (emphasis added).

We dismiss as moot the
remainder of Husband's issues.  "A case becomes moot when judgment, if
rendered, will have no practical legal effect upon existing controversy.  This
is true when some event occurs making it impossible for [the] reviewing [c]ourt
to grant effectual relief."  Mathis v. S.C. State Highway Dep't,
260 S.C. 344, 346, 195 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1973).  If there is no actual
controversy, this court will not decide moot or academic questions.  Id. 

AFFIRMED. 

FEW, C.J.,
HUFF and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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