Wilson v. Jefferies

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

Jamar Wilson, Appellant,

v.

Nadiah Jefferies, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001412

Appeal From Cherokee County
Kelly Pope-Black, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-263
Submitted March 1, 2018 – Filed June 13, 2018

AFFIRMED

Donald Loren Smith, of Attorney Office of Donald
Smith, of Anderson, for Appellant.

Nadiah Jefferies, of Gaffney, pro se.

PER CURIAM: Jamar Wilson appeals the family court's dismissal of his
modification action against Nadiah Jefferies. We affirm.1

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
On May 13, 2015, Wilson filed this action against Jefferies to modify the child
support he was previously ordered to pay Jefferies. On June 1, 2016, the family
court dismissed the case because it had been pending for over 365 days with no
request for a final hearing. On June 2, 2016, the clerk of court's office received a
rule to show cause/complaint for contempt from Wilson; however, the clerk of
court returned the filings to Wilson with a letter explaining the case ended on June
1, 2016. By letter dated June 7, 2016, Wilson informed the clerk of court he
considered the rule to show cause "served" on the family court when he mailed it
on May 31, 2016. On June 9, 2016, the clerk of court's office sent Wilson another
letter stating it dismissed the case before it received the paperwork on the rule to
show cause and the family court would not sign the rule to show cause because the
order of dismissal had already been issued. Wilson then filed a motion to reinstate
the case, which the family court denied. The family court noted that the rule to
show cause could be filed in a new action. This appeal followed.

Wilson argues the family court erred in dismissing his modification action and
refusing to consider his rule to show cause. We disagree.

In 2014, the Supreme Court of South Carolina ordered that "all domestic relations
and juvenile cases in the State of South Carolina, with the exception of
[Department of Social Services (DSS)] Abuse and Neglect cases, shall be disposed
of within 365 days of their filing." RE: Family Court Benchmark, S.C. Sup. Ct.
Order dated Aug. 27, 2014. With the exception of abuse and neglect cases brought
by the South Carolina Department of Social Services, the supreme court directed
county clerks of court to indicate on all domestic relations cases that a written
request for a final hearing in the case "must be delivered by a party or attorney to
the Clerk's Office within 365 days of th[e] filing date" and that "[f]ailure to comply
with this notice shall result in the dismissal of [the] case." Id. (emphasis added).
The supreme court further ordered the clerk of court to prepare an order dismissing
a case without prejudice "[i]n the event no request for a final hearing is received by
the [c]lerk of [c]ourt within the time period prescribed and there is no other order
. . . extending the case." Id. (emphasis added).
Here, the family court dismissed Wilson's modification action on June 1, 2016,
pursuant to our supreme court's administrative order. Wilson acknowledges his
filings were clocked in on June 2, 2016, after his case was dismissed. Although
Wilson also asserts his "understanding and belief" that his filings arrived on June 1,
2016, nothing in our record supports Wilson's assertion. See Rule 210, SCACR
(stating that except as provided in other appellate court rules, "the appellate court
will not consider any fact which does not appear in the [r]ecord on [a]ppeal");
Harkins v. Greenville Cty., 340 S.C. 606, 616, 533 S.E.2d 886, 891 (2000) (stating
the party appealing a decision has the burden of presenting the appellate court with
an adequate record). Accordingly, we affirm the order of dismissal and the family
court's refusal to issue the rule to show cause.2

AFFIRMED.

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

2
We further note Wilson suffered no prejudice from the family court's refusal to
issue the rule to show cause in this case because the family court explained that
Wilson's rule to show cause could be filed in a different action and Wilson
subsequently filed a contempt complaint in a different action. Wilson's appeal
from the family court's order in that case is pending before this court in Wilson v.
Jefferies, Appellate Case No. 2016-002259.