Harwell v. Harwell

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

David W. Harwell, Deceased, by and through the duly
appointed Personal Representative of His Estate, Robert
Bryan Harwell, Respondent,

v.

Deborah B. Harwell, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-002058

Appeal From Horry County
Melissa J. Buckhannon, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-306
Submitted December 2, 2019 – Filed November 12, 2020

AFFIRMED

Deborah B. Harwell, of Mooresville, North Carolina, pro
se.

Kevin Mitchell Barth, of Barth, Ballenger & Lewis, LLP,
and Gena Phillips Ervin, of Orr & Ervin, LLC, both of
Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Deborah B. Harwell (Widow) appeals the family court's order
finding her in criminal contempt for violating various provisions of a previous
court order. On appeal, Widow argues the family court erred in (1) finding it had
subject matter jurisdiction; (2) finding her in criminal contempt; and (3) ordering
her to pay attorney's fees. We affirm.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

David W. Harwell (Decedent) and Widow were married on November 21, 2001,
having entered into a prenuptial agreement on November 19, 2001. On March 20,
2015, Decedent filed an action in family court seeking a decree of separate support
and maintenance, including a request for enforcement of the prenuptial agreement.
The parties agreed to mediation and reached an agreement resolving all issues
(Mediation Agreement). The parties requested the family court approve the
agreement. The family court adopted and incorporated the Mediation Agreement
into its final order (the Final Decree) issued on July 21, 2015. The Final Decree
included provisions requiring (1) Widow and Decedent to file a joint tax return and
proportionally split the refund and (2) Widow to release Decedent's cell phone
number from her account, as well as provisions prohibiting (1) contact between
Widow and Decedent and (2) Widow and Decedent from disparaging each other or
each other's families. The Final Decree contained the following warning in
capitalized, bold letters: "Failure to comply with the terms of this order may
constitute contempt of court, and may be punishable by a fine, a public work
sentence, or by imprisonment, or any combination thereof, in the discretion of the
court." On September 30, 2015, Decedent passed away.

On February 11, 2016, the family court issued a rule to show cause against Widow
at the request of Robert B. Harwell (Harwell), the personal representative for
Decedent's estate, for alleged violations of the Final Decree. The family court
found Widow in criminal contempt for violating the four provisions described
above, sentencing her to forty-five days' imprisonment. Widow filed a motion to
reconsider and for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, which the family
court denied. This appeal followed.

LAW/ANALYSIS

1. We find the family court had subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the Final
Decree.1 "Subject matter jurisdiction is 'the power to hear and determine cases of

1
Several of Widow's arguments relate to the family court's subject matter
jurisdiction to include certain provisions in the Final Decree. We find these issues
are not properly before this court because Widow did not appeal the Final Decree,
the general class to which the proceedings in question belong.'" Theisen v.
Theisen, 394 S.C. 434, 440–41, 716 S.E.2d 271, 274 (2011) (quoting Dove v. Gold
Kist, Inc., 314 S.C. 235, 237–38, 442 S.E.2d 598, 600 (1994)). The family court
has "exclusive jurisdiction . . . in all cases or proceedings within the county against
persons charged with failure to obey an order of the court made pursuant to
authority conferred by law." S.C. Code Ann. § 63-3-530(A)(13) (2010). The
family court also has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving "separate support
and maintenance . . . and for settlement of all legal and equitable rights of the
parties in the actions in and to the real and personal property of the marriage." S.C.
Code Ann. § 63-3-530(A)(2) (2010). In this case, the family court was
adjudicating the question of whether Widow willfully violated the Final Decree,
which granted Decedent's request for a decree of separate maintenance and support
and settled the legal and equitable rights attendant to Widow and Decedent's
marriage. Because this case involved an allegation of a "failure to obey an order of
the [family] court" issued to conclude a case for "separate support and maintenance
. . . and for settlement of all legal and equitable rights of the parties . . . [to a]
marriage," the family court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case.2
§ 63-3-530(A)(2), (13).

2. Widow raises multiple arguments as to why the family court erred in finding her
in criminal contempt for violating provisions of the Final Decree. We find these
issues are unpreserved for appellate review. See Dreher v. S.C. Dep't of Health &
Envtl. Control, 412 S.C. 244, 249–50, 772 S.E.2d 505, 508 (2015) ("'An
unappealed ruling is the law of the case and requires affirmance.' Thus, should the
appealing party fail to raise all of the grounds upon which a [family] court's
decision was based, those unappealed findings—whether correct or not—become
the law of the case." (citation omitted) (quoting Shirley's Iron Works, Inc. v. City of

move for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), or move to be relieved from judgment
under Rule 60(b), SCRCP. See Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 632, 576 S.E.2d
156, 166 (2003) (finding the family court could not overrule a prior unappealed
family court order because it had become the law of the case). Accordingly,
Widow's subject matter jurisdiction challenge is limited to determining whether the
family court had jurisdiction to enforce the Final Decree.
2
Although Widow raises the issue of personal jurisdiction in her argument that the
family court lacked jurisdiction over Decedent's family members, she did not
include this issue in her statement of the issues on appeal. See Rule 208(b)(1)(B),
SCACR ("Ordinarily, no point will be considered which is not set forth in the
statement of the issues on appeal."). Accordingly, this argument is not preserved
for appellate review.
Union, 403 S.C. 560, 573, 743 S.E.2d 778, 785 (2013))); Skywaves I Corp. v.
Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 423 S.C. 432, 451, 814 S.E.2d 643, 653–54 (Ct. App.
2018) ("Under the two[-]issue rule, whe[n] a decision is based on more than one
ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds
because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case." (alterations in
original) (quoting Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346, 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010),
abrogated in part on other grounds by Repko v. County of Georgetown, 424 S.C.
494, 818 S.E.2d 743 (2018))). The family court found Widow in contempt for
willfully violating four provisions of the Final Decree. However, Widow only
challenged two of the provisions in her initial brief and did not discuss the
remaining two provisions until her reply brief. See Pruitt v. Pruitt, 389 S.C. 250,
268 n.5, 697 S.E.2d 702, 712 n.5 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[A]n argument made in a reply
brief cannot present an issue to the appellate court if it was not addressed in the
initial brief." (alteration in original) (quoting Glasscock, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar.
Co., 348 S.C. 76, 81, 557 S.E.2d 689, 692 (Ct. App. 2001))); see also Murray v.
Murray, 312 S.C. 154, 159–60, 439 S.E.2d 312, 316 (Ct. App. 1993) ("An
appellant may not use the reply brief to argue issues not argued in the appellant's
brief."). Because Widow failed to appeal all of the grounds for which the family
court found her in contempt, the two-issue rule and law of the case doctrines
require us to affirm the family court's finding of criminal contempt.3

3. We affirm the family court's award of attorney's fees. First, Widow argues
Harwell was required to file a new action for his request for a rule to show cause.
However, because Widow makes a conclusory argument that this was error and
does not cite any supporting authority in her brief, we find the argument is
abandoned. See Judy v. Judy, 384 S.C. 634, 644, 682 S.E.2d 836, 841 (Ct. App.
2009) (finding the issue was abandoned when the party made conclusory
arguments and failed to cite any supporting authority). Second, Widow argues
Harwell was required to move to substitute the estate in place of Decedent under
Rule 25(a)(1), SCRCP. However, because Widow raised this issue to the family
court on the second day of trial but subsequently conceded it, we find this issue is
unpreserved for appellate review. See Widman v. Widman, 348 S.C. 97, 118–19,
557 S.E.2d 693, 704–05 (Ct. App. 2001) (finding the issue was not preserved when
it was conceded before the family court). Third, Widow argues the attorney's fee
award was error because the family court's finding of contempt was not supported

3
Based upon our review of the record, we note the family court's finding is
concerning because Widow's conduct, while sufficient for a finding of civil
contempt, did not warrant a finding of criminal contempt. However, as explained
above, our consideration of the issue is constrained by the rules of preservation.
by the record. Because we affirm the family court's holding, we decline to address
this argument. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598,
613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding an appellate court need not review
remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the
appeal).

AFFIRMED.4

WILLIAMS, KONDUROS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

4
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.