709 S.E.2d 679
S.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Wife and Husband were divorced in 2006; the final order contemplated sale of the marital home with Wife allowed to buy Husband’s equity or list the home for sale.
- Divorce decree valued the home as marital with Wife able to purchase Husband’s equity; if not, the home would be listed at a price not less than $225,300 with net proceeds split (Husband up to $60,191.02, 32.14%).
- In 2007, the court approved a realtor listing process; listing price was set initially at $274,000 and the home did not sell.
- In 2008, Judge Cate purported to clarify the divorce decree, creating a fixed monetary amount and post-judgment interest on Husband’s equity and imposing a parametric pricing scheme.
- Wife challenged the 2008 order, arguing lack of jurisdiction, improper Rule 60(a) use, and inappropriate pricing and interest provisions.
- The appellate court reversed the post-judgment interest and the Rule 60(a) clarification, remanding for continued supervision of the sale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to modify | Segars-Andrews reserved sale matters; Cate lacked jurisdiction. | Court could resolve sale terms after reservations; authority to supervise sale remains. | Issue unpreserved; no review. |
| Rule 60(a) clerical errors | Clarification corrected clerical errors and recharacterized equity as money judgment. | Clarification within Rule 60(a) allows correction of clerical errors. | Rule 60(a) cannot change the scope of the judgment; reversal of the clarification. |
| Pricing scheme authority | Pricing scheme to reduce listing price was improper or inconsistent with decree. | Pricing scheme is within the court’s equity power to finalize sale and sever ties. | Affirmed; pricing scheme within the court’s authority. |
| Post-judgment interest on equity | Award of post-judgment interest should stand as a monetary judgment. | Interest tied to sale and not a fixed monetary award; inconsistent with decree. | Reversed; interest issue dependent on Rule 60(a) ruling. |
| Preservation of remaining issues | Other challenges to clarification warranted review. | Issues not supported with authority or preserved. | Unreviewed; issues abandoned or not preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnal v. Fraser, 371 S.C. 512 (Ct. App. 2007) (discretion in family court interpretations and enforcement)
- Hayes v. Hayes, 312 S.C. 141 (Ct. App. 1993) (continuing jurisdiction and Rule 60(a) applicability)
- Michel v. Michel, 289 S.C. 187 (Ct. App. 1986) (clerical errors; scope of judgment considerations)
- Price v. Price, 325 S.C. 379 (Ct. App. 1996) (final property settlement terms; modification limits)
- Doran v. Doran, 288 S.C. 477 (Ct. App. 1986) (term limits on modification; clerical corrections only)
- Ebert v. Ebert, 320 S.C. 331 (Ct. App. 1995) (implied terms in divorce property settlements)
- Roe v. Roe, 311 S.C. 471 (Ct. App. 1993) (sale of marital property; equitable power to set terms)
- Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598 (1999) (nonauthoritative guidance on appellate review limits)