766 S.E.2d 381
S.C.2014Background
- Husband and Wife divorced after final hearing; Wife sought attorneys' fees and submitted a fee affidavit (~$15,000) at the hearing. Husband did not object to the affidavit at trial.
- Final decree ordered Husband to pay Wife $8,000 in attorneys' fees and costs within 180 days and split GAL fees; Wife was ordered to pay Husband $3,050 for a separate contempt-related motion.
- Husband filed a timely Rule 59(e) motion complaining only that the 180-day payment deadline was unworkable given his inability to pay, not that the fee award itself was improper. Family court denied the motion.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Husband failed to preserve a challenge to the fee award because he did not object at trial and that a Rule 59(e) objection to fees is untimely.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the fee objection was preserved and to clarify preservation procedure for attorneys’ fee awards in family court.
Issues
| Issue | Buist's Argument | Buist's (Husband) Opposing Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Husband’s Rule 59(e) motion a timely preservation of an objection to the attorneys’ fee award? | Rule 59(e) was a timely challenge to the fee award. | Court of Appeals: objecting at Rule 59(e) was untimely because issue could have been raised at trial. | Supreme Court: Rule 59(e) may timely raise an objection to a fee award; Court of Appeals erred to the extent it held otherwise. |
| Must parties contemporaneously object to a fee affidavit at trial to preserve appellate review? | No; contemporaneous objection not required if party later challenges award under Rule 59(e) using record evidence. | Yes; failure to object at trial waives review. | Supreme Court: contemporaneous objection is not always required; failure to object accepts affidavit as reasonable for amount but court must still apply entitlement factors. |
| What procedural steps preserve a challenge to entitlement to fees (Glasscock/E.D.M. factors)? | A party may object at trial, request a fees-only hearing, or raise specific objections in Rule 59(e) supported by record evidence. | N/A (Court of Appeals demanded earlier specificity). | Supreme Court: set a flexible procedure—object at trial or request later hearing; if no hearing requested, objections on Rule 59(e) are limited to record evidence (no new testimony). |
| Was Husband’s Rule 59(e) specific enough to preserve his challenge to the court’s application of Glasscock/E.D.M.? | Husband argued inability to pay within 180 days, implying entitlement/ability-to-pay issue. | Family court needed clearer objection to Glasscock/E.D.M. application. | Held: Husband’s motion raised only timeframe/ability-to-pay as to payment deadline, not the substantive application of Glasscock/E.D.M.; therefore those substantive objections were waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buist v. Buist, 399 S.C. 110, 730 S.E.2d 879 (Ct. App.) (Court of Appeals decision under review)
- Glasscock v. Glasscock, 304 S.C. 158, 403 S.E.2d 313 (establishes factors for determining amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees)
- E.D.M. v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471, 415 S.E.2d 812 (sets factors for entitlement to attorneys’ fees in family cases)
- Pye v. Estate of Fox, 369 S.C. 555, 633 S.E.2d 505 (preservation rule: issue must be raised and ruled on to be preserved)
- Herron v. Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461, 719 S.E.2d 640 (clarifies that exact doctrinal labels aren't required to preserve an issue)