David S. Casmas v. Miranda J. Kleiman (2)

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 S. Casmas, Respondent,

v.

Miranda J. Kleiman, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2024-000364

Appeal From Dorchester County
Mandy Wilkerson Kimmons, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-230
Submitted April 1, 2026 – Filed May 13, 2026

AFFIRMED

William Sylvester Hammett, III, of Cobb, Dill &
Hammett, LLC, of Mount. Pleasant, for Appellant.

Thomas Ryan Phillips, of Cordell Law LLP, of
Charleston, for Respondent.

Eric Salisbury Durand, of Eric S. Durand, Esq., LLC, of
North Charleston, as the Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Miranda Kleiman (Mother) appeals the family court's denial of
an award of attorney's fees and costs. On appeal, Mother argues the family court
erred in (1) not awarding her attorney's fees and costs on the basis it believed
Mother was better able to pay her fees than David Casmas (Father) and temporary
beneficial results were precedential; (2) not awarding attorney's fees and costs on
the basis it failed to recognize that Father owed an independent duty to correct
fraud and deceit perpetrated in his name; (3) not awarding Mother attorney's fees
and costs where Father's failure to cooperate in litigation unreasonably increased
Mother's attorney's fees and costs; (4) conflating Father's fraud and deceit with
Mother's numerosity of filings; (5) ordering Mother to reimburse Father's attorney's
fees when Father had waived his right to those fees; and (6) sustaining objections
to Mother's questions seeking to elicit testimony exploring the veracity of Father's
claim that he had good faith reliance on the actions of his previous counsel. We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

Initially, we hold Mother failed to preserve issues five and six for appellate review.
We hold Mother's argument that the family court erred in ordering her to pay
Father previously awarded attorney's fees because Father waived reimbursement is
not preserved for appellate review as she failed to raise it to the family court.
Mother's argument that the family court erred in sustaining objections to questions
attempting to explore the veracity of Father's excuse of relying on his attorney is
not preserved for appellate review because Mother failed to proffer the testimony
for this court to consider. See Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 23, 602
S.E.2d 772, 779-80 (2004) ("Issues and arguments are preserved for appellate
review only when they are raised to and ruled on by the [family] court."); Jamison
v. Ford Motor Co., 373 S.C. 248, 260, 644 S.E.2d 755, 761 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The
failure to make a proffer of excluded evidence will preclude review on appeal.");
id. ("It is well settled that a reviewing court may not consider error claimed in the
exclusion of testimony unless the record on appeal shows fairly what the rejected
testimony would have been.").

As to issues one through four, we hold the family court did not err in not awarding
Mother attorney's fees and costs. We find Mother was in a better position to pay
her own fees, paying her own fees would not have as negative an impact on her
standard of living as it would on Father's, and Father obtained beneficial results
throughout the case. Although Mother obtained the more significant beneficial
result in the final order, Father had success at the temporary hearing, in the
motions filed in the pendency of the case, and in gaining an additional week of
parenting time in the final order. See Stone v. Thompson, 428 S.C. 79, 91, 833
S.E.2d 266, 272 (2019) ("Appellate courts review family court matters de novo,
with the exceptions of evidentiary and procedural rulings."); Greene v. Greene,
439 S.C. 427, 439, 887 S.E.2d 157, 164 (Ct. App. 2023) ("While this broad scope
of review allows the appellate court to find facts in accordance with its own view
of the preponderance of the evidence, it does not require this court to disregard the
findings of the family court."); id. at 439-40, 887 S.E.2d at 164 ("The appellant
bears the burden of convincing the appellate court that the family court committed
error or the preponderance of the evidence is against the family court's findings.");
E.D.M. v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471, 476-77, 415 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1992) ("In
determining whether an attorney's fee should be awarded, the following factors
should be considered: (1) the party's ability to pay his/her own attorney's fee; (2)
beneficial results obtained by the attorney; (3) the parties' respective financial
conditions; (4) effect of the attorney's fee on each party's standard of living.");
Miteva v. Robinson, 418 S.C. 447, 465, 792 S.E.2d 920, 930 (Ct. App. 2016)
("[T]he beneficial results factor is only one of several factors to consider in
deciding whether or not to award attorney's fees."); Spreeuw v. Barker, 385 S.C.
45, 72, 682 S.E.2d 843, 856-57 (Ct. App. 2009) (explaining the family court did
not err in awarding attorney's fees when a mother obtained beneficial results at
both the temporary hearing and at trial); Lewin v. Lewin, 396 S.C. 349, 355-56, 721
S.E.2d 1, 4 (Ct. App. 2011) (explaining the family court did not err in finding a
mother obtained beneficial results where she prevailed on several issues, including
temporary suspension of the father's visitation rights, even though the mother did
not receive all relief requested). Further, although Mother asserts she should be
entitled to attorney's fees and costs for other reasons—Father's lack of cooperation
and actions of fraud and deceit throughout the case and the increased attorney's
fees those actions created for Mother—we hold Mother failed to establish conduct
by Father that would result in an award of attorney's fees and costs. See Greene,
439 S.C. at 439-40, 887 S.E.2d at 164 ("The appellant bears the burden of
convincing the appellate court that the family court committed error or the
preponderance of the evidence is against the family court's findings."); Bojilov v.
Bojilov, 425 S.C. 161, 185, 819 S.E.2d 791, 804 (Ct. App. 2018) ("When a party's
uncooperative conduct in discovery and litigation increases the amount of the other
party's fees and costs, the court can use this as an additional basis to award the
other party attorney's fees."); Miteva, 418 S.C. at 466, 792 S.E.2d at 930
(explaining a husband's argument that his wife unnecessarily delayed their case by
resisting discovery failed because the court found the husband did not submit any
proof that the wife's actions were actual misconduct that warranted an imposition
of the husband's fees against the wife).

AFFIRMED.1

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
GEATHERS, HEWITT, and CURTIS, JJ., concur.