Barnhouse v. Barnhouse, 2018-MO-010

Mother sued Father in family court alleging he owed $114,245.26 under the parties' court‑approved financial agreement and violated provisions of the parenting agreement, seeking modification of custody and restricted visitation.
Father counterclaimed, alleging Mother violated the parenting agreement, sought sole custody, and requested removal of the parent coordinator; both parties filed multiple discovery and fee motions.
The family court (1) adjudicated discovery disputes, (2) struck multiple allegations from Father's answer and counterclaim, (3) denied removal of the parent coordinator, and (4) awarded Mother $191,196.55 in attorney’s fees and costs pendente lite.
Father appealed the family court’s order; the Court of Appeals temporarily stayed enforcement of the fee award, but this Court vacated that stay and reinstated the fee award under S.C. Code §63‑3‑530(A)(38).
This Court reviewed the family court’s striking of specific counterclaim allegations and certain discovery rulings; some strikes were affirmed, some reversed, and some remanded for further fact development.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Whether allegations based on conduct predating the divorce were admissible	Pre‑divorce acts are inadmissible and irrelevant to current custody/dispute	Old acts show a continuing pattern of misconduct relevant to custody	Affirmed striking those allegations to the extent they rely on pre‑divorce facts as irrelevant
Whether allegations were deficient for lack of date/time/place specificity	Father failed to plead time/place/circumstances clearly; strikes proper	Rules do not require that level of specificity; Rule 8 requires only short, plain statement	Reversed striking of paragraphs for insufficient specificity (Rule 8 governs)
Whether allegations based on allegedly illegally obtained communications should be struck	Information was unlawfully obtained (Stored Communications Act/Wiretap Act) and thus inadmissible	Family court did not explain how acquisition violated statutes; allegations should remain until record developed	Reversed and remanded to develop record on whether acquisition violated statutes before striking
Appealability/interlocutory nature of other discovery and procedural rulings	Various interlocutory orders are reviewable here	Many discovery orders are interlocutory and not immediately appealable	Court declined to address remaining interlocutory issues (not immediately appealable)

Doe v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 407 S.C. 623 (2014) (de novo review standard in family court appeals)
Thornton v. S.C. Elec. & Gas Corp., 391 S.C. 297 (2010) (appellate jurisdiction over orders striking pleadings)
Brown v. Cnty. of Berkeley, 366 S.C. 354 (2005) (interlocutory orders generally not immediately appealable)
Hagood v. Sommerville, 362 S.C. 191 (2005) (interlocutory orders and appealability principles)
Lowndes Prods., Inc. v. Brower, 262 S.C. 431 (1974) (denial of pretrial discovery is typically not directly appealable)