Denise Cape v. Anthony Cape

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

Denise Cape, Respondent,

v.

Anthony Cape, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2024-001054

Appeal From Greenwood County
Mindy W. Zimmerman, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-235
Submitted April 1, 2026 – Filed May 20, 2026

AFFIRMED

Stephen Drew Geoly, of Geoly Law Firm, of Greenwood,
for Appellant.

Thomas Philip Austin, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Anthony Cape appeals an order of the family court (1) finding
him in civil contempt of court, (2) sentencing him to six months' imprisonment,
and (3) allowing him to purge his sentence by paying $7,500. On appeal,
Appellant argues the family court erred when it (1) held a civil contempt hearing
when Appellant's counsel was not present, (2) addressed a child support matter
when he had appeared before the family court to address a separate matter, (3) did
not allow him to present evidence that he had met his child support obligation, (4)
made a finding of civil contempt despite there being no sworn evidence indicating
that Appellant willfully failed to pay child support, and (5) did not allow Appellant
to consult with his attorney and present evidence to determine the correct amount
of child support owed. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.1

We hold Appellant's fourth issue, alleging the family court erred when it found him
in civil contempt, is moot because the family court's order provided that he could
purge his contempt and would be released from confinement if he paid $7,500,
Appellant did pay the $7,500, and the family court purged his contempt. See
Chappell v. Chappell, 282 S.C. 376, 377-78, 318 S.E.2d 590, 591 (Ct. App. 1984)
(finding the appellant's appeal was moot and unappealable when he purged himself
of contempt). We further hold Appellant's remaining issues, which arise out of the
contempt proceedings, are precluded from appellate review. See id. at 377, 318
S.E.2d at 591 ("Where one held in contempt for violation of a court order complies
with the order, his compliance renders the question concerning whether he was in
contempt academic or moot and precludes appellate review of the contempt
proceedings.").

AFFIRMED.2

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

1
Respondent did not file a brief. Although this court may take any action it deems
proper, including reversal, when a respondent fails to timely file a brief, we find
the record on appeal contains sufficient grounds for this court to affirm. See Rule
208(a)(4), SCACR ("Upon the failure of respondent to timely file a brief, the
appellate court may take such action as it deems proper."); Rule 220(c), SCACR
("The appellate court may affirm any ruling, order, decision[,] or judgment upon
any ground(s) appearing in the [r]ecord on [a]ppeal.").
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.