Kristen Golestan v. Amir Golestan

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

Kristin Golestan k/k/a Kristin Wolfe, Respondent,

v.

Amir Golestan, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2022-000171

Appeal From Charleston County
Michèle Patrão Forsythe, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-312
Submitted September 12, 2023 – Filed September 20, 2023

AFFIRMED

Jon A. Mersereau, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Chris Paton, of Chris Paton LLC; and Jerry Nicholas
Theos, of Theos Law Firm, LLC, both of Charleston, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Amir Golestan (Father) appeals the family court's order finding
him in willful contempt of the court. On appeal, Father argues the family court
erred by (1) failing to grant his motion for a continuance, (2) granting relief not
requested in Kristin Golestan's (Mother's) pleadings and for which Father had no
notice, (3) failing to grant Father's motion for the family court judge to recuse
herself, and (4) awarding attorney's fees and expert fees for a hearing that should
not have gone forward because of the foregoing issues. We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR.

Initially, we find Father's contention that the family court erred by granting relief
not requested in Mother's pleadings not preserved for appellate review because this
issue was 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))).

Next, we hold the family court did not abuse its discretion by denying Father's
motion to continue. See Sellers v. Nicholls, 432 S.C. 101, 114, 851 S.E.2d 54,
60-61 (Ct. App. 2020) ("[W]e will not set aside a judge's ruling on a motion for a
continuance unless it clearly appears there was an abuse of discretion to the
prejudice of the movant." (emphasis omitted) (quoting Townsend v. Townsend, 323
S.C. 309, 313, 474 S.E.2d 424, 427 (1996))). The family court articulated on the
record its reasonings for holding an emergency hearing, which in turn support its
denial of Father's motion for a continuance. See Weller v. Weller, 434 S.C. 530,
538, 863 S.E.2d 835, 839 (Ct. App. 2021) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when
the family court's decision is controlled by some error of law or whe[n] the order,
based upon findings of fact, is without evidentiary support." (alteration in original)
(quoting Gartside v. Gartside, 383 S.C. 35, 42, 677 S.E.2d 621, 625 (Ct. App.
2009))); see also Rule 14(d), SCFCR ("The rule to show cause, and the supporting
affidavit or verified petition, shall be served, in the manner prescribed herein, not
later than ten days before the date specified for the hearing, unless a different
notice period is fixed by the issuing judge within the rule to show cause. In an
emergency situation, the notice period of ten days may be reduced by the issuing
judge.").

We further hold the family court did not abuse its discretion by denying Father's
motion to recuse because Father failed to show evidence of bias or prejudice. 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."); Patel v. Patel, 359 S.C. 515, 524, 599 S.E.2d 114, 118
(2004) ("Under South Carolina law, if there is no evidence of judicial prejudice, a
judge's failure to disqualify himself will not be reversed on appeal."); id. ("It is not
sufficient for a party seeking disqualification to simply allege bias; the party must
show some evidence of bias or prejudice."). Finally, in light of this court's ruling
on the foregoing issues, we find issue four without merit.

AFFIRMED. 1

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

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