Aminah Richburg v. Andre Richburg

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

Aminah A. Richburg, Appellant,

v.

Andre Richburg, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2021-001317

Appeal From Greenville County
W. Marsh Robertson, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-271
Submitted July 11, 2023 – Filed July 19, 2023

AFFIRMED

Aminah A. Richburg, of Greenville, pro se.

Andre Richburg, of Simpsonville, pro se.

PER CURIAM: Aminah A. Richburg (Mother) appeals a family court order
holding Andre Richburg (Father) in contempt for failing to pay uncovered medical
expenses for the parties' children from 2008 through 2012 and directing Father to
pay $1,185. Mother asserts many issues on appeal. We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR.
As to whether the family court erred by directing Father to pay only $1,185 of the
children's uncovered medical expenses—instead of the $2,180.16 Mother asserted
Father owed—we hold the family court did not err because Mother failed to
provide the court with evidence to support her calculation. 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.");
id. at 91-92, 833 S.E.2d at 272 ("Even under de novo review, the longstanding
principles that trial judges are in superior positions to assess witness credibility and
that appellants must show the trial judge erred by ruling against the preponderance
of the evidence remain applicable."); Davis v. Davis, 372 S.C. 64, 82, 641 S.E.2d
446, 455 (Ct. App. 2006) ("In a proceeding for contempt for violation of a court
order, the moving party must show the existence of a court order and the facts
establishing the respondent's noncompliance with the order." (quoting Hawkins v.
Mullins, 359 S.C. 497, 501, 597 S.E.2d 897, 899 (Ct. App. 2004))); id. ("[B]efore a
court may find a person in contempt, the record must clearly and specifically
reflect the contemptuous conduct." (quoting Widman v. Widman, 348 S.C. 97,
119, 557 S.E.2d 693, 705 (Ct. App. 2001))). Thus, the family court properly
ordered Father to pay the amount Father acknowledged he owed. Further, the
family court did not err by failing to find Father in willful contempt of court for
nonpayment of uncovered medical expenses between 2012 and the date of the
hearing because Mother did not present to Father documentation of the owed
expenses until the date of the hearing.1 We note the family court's order provides
Mother a mechanism to seek those expenses.

1
To the extent Mother contends she presented Father with proof of the uncovered
medical expenses when she filed her rule to show cause, Mother gave the family
court conflicting statements. Mother first stated she served Father documentation
of the uncovered medical expenses with her rule to show cause, but she later stated
to the court that the rule to show cause hearing was the first instance in which she
made Father aware of the expenses from 2012 until the 2021 hearing. Regardless,
Father cannot be held in willful contempt for failing to pay expenses he was first
informed he owed in the rule to show cause that sought to find him in contempt for
his nonpayment of said expenses. See Davis, 372 S.C. at 81, 641 S.E.2d at 455
("Contempt results from the willful disobedience of an order of the court."
(emphasis added) (quoting Bigham v. Bigham, 264 S.C. 101, 104, 212 S.E.2d 594,
596 (1975))); id. ("A willful act is one which is 'done voluntarily and intentionally
with the specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with the specific intent
to fail to do something the law requires to be done; that is to say, with bad purpose
either to disobey or disregard the law.'" (quoting Widman, 348 S.C. at 119, 557
S.E.2d at 705)).
Next, to the extent Mother argues the family court erred by sustaining Father's
objection to Mother's testimony about the school expenses she paid and sacrifices
she made for the children, this issue is abandoned because Mother did not provide
argument or supporting authority in her appellate brief. See Glasscock, Inc. v. U.S.
Fidelity & Guar. Co., 348 S.C. 76, 81, 557 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App. 2001)
("[S]hort, conclusory statements made without supporting authority are deemed
abandoned on appeal and therefore not presented for review.").

Finally, we hold all remaining issues are not preserved for appellate review
because they were not raised to and ruled on by the family court. See Kosciusko v.
Parham, 428 S.C. 481, 506, 836 S.E.2d 362, 375 (Ct. App. 2019) ("In order for an
issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled
upon by the [family court]." (quoting State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587
S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003))); id. ("Issues not raised and ruled upon in the [family]
court will not be considered on appeal." (quoting Dunbar, 356 S.C. at 142, 587
S.E.2d at 693-94)); Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212, 634 S.E.2d 51, 54 (Ct. App.
2006) ("Error preservation requirements are intended 'to enable the lower court to
rule properly after it has considered all relevant facts, law, and arguments.'"
(quoting Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412, 529 S.E.2d 543, 546
(2000))); id. ("Without an initial ruling by the trial court, a reviewing court simply
is not able to evaluate whether the trial court committed error."); id. at 212, 634
S.E.2d at 54-55 ("Therefore, when an appellant neither raises an issue at trial nor
through a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion, the issue is not preserved for appellate
review.").

AFFIRMED. 2

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

2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.