Drye v. Gault

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

Christopher Drye, d/b/a Drye's Auto Crushing,
Respondent,

v.

Mike Gault and Mary T. Gault, d/b/a Gault's Used Cars,
Total, Inc., Edward Keith Potter individually and as
President of Total, Inc., Defendants,

Of Whom Mike Gault is the Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-001347

Appeal From Cherokee County
J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-153
Submitted January 1, 2015 – Filed March 18, 2015

AFFIRMED

Duane Alan Lazenby and Ginger D. Goforth, both of
Lazenby Law Firm, LLC, of Spartanburg, for Appellant.

William G. Rhoden, of Winter & Rhoden, LLC, of
Gaffney, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Mike Gault appeals the trial court's decision to hold him in
contempt and sentence him to ten days' imprisonment, arguing the trial court erred
in (1) finding Gault willfully violated a discovery order and (2) holding him in
criminal contempt under a "clear and convincing evidence" standard. We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in finding Gault willfully violated a
discovery order: Ex parte Cannon, 385 S.C. 643, 660, 685 S.E.2d 814, 823 (Ct.
App. 2009) ("A decision on contempt rests within the sound discretion of the [trial]
court. It is within the [trial] court's discretion to punish by fine or imprisonment
every act of contempt before the court. On appeal, this Court should reverse the
contempt decision only if it is without evidentiary support or the [trial] court
abused its discretion." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); id. at 660,
685 S.E.2d at 824 ("Contempt results from the willful disobedience of a court
order, and before a court may find a person in contempt, the record must clearly
and specifically reflect the contemptuous conduct." (internal quotation marks
omitted)); id. at 661, 685 S.E.2d at 824 ("A willful act is one . . . 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." (internal quotation marks
omitted)).

2. As to whether the court erred in applying a clear and convincing evidence
standard to hold him in criminal contempt: S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina
Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007) (stating an issue
must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for
appellate review).

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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