815 S.E.2d 772
S.C. Ct. App.2018Background
- Parties married in 2006; one child born 2009. Physical altercation in March 2014 led to mutual allegations and Wife's arrest; no permanent order of protection. Parents began a week-to-week alternating custody schedule while living apart beginning when the child was ~4½.
- Multiple police calls between 2012–2014; a no-contact order from the criminal case prevented communication at the time of the final hearing. The domestic violence charge against Wife remained pending at the final hearing.
- At a multi-day final hearing (May 2015) the parties reached and the family court approved a partial settlement on equitable division (each keeps personal property; Husband reimburses $3,000; alimony waived). The court was told the settlement would be final and nonreviewable.
- Witnesses (teachers, therapist, GAL, and parents) uniformly reported the child was happy, well-adjusted, and thriving under the week-to-week joint physical custody arrangement that had existed for 14 months before the hearing and continued thereafter (~43 months total by opinion time).
- Family court awarded joint custody with week-to-week alternating placement, appointed Wife final decision-maker, and cited the parties’ chronic inability to communicate; court found "exceptional circumstances" justified continuing joint physical custody.
- Husband moved to correct the supplemental property order because a twelve‑foot trailer was listed twice; the family court amended the order to list the trailer once. Wife appealed both the custody award and the property-correction order.
Issues
| Issue | Clark (Wife) Argument | Clark (Husband) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exceptional circumstances supported joint physical custody | No; joint custody is generally disfavored and Wife sought sole custody | Yes; the existing week-to-week arrangement had worked for the child and disrupting it would harm her | Affirmed: exceptional circumstances (long, successful existing arrangement and child’s stability) justified joint custody |
| Whether the court properly granted Husband’s motion to alter the settlement allocation (double-counted trailer) | The settlement, once approved, is final and not subject to modification; court erred in altering property division | The trailer was listed twice due to clerical error; correction under Rule 60(a) was appropriate | Affirmed: correction was a permissible clerical fix, not a substantive modification |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381 (2011) (family-court decisions reviewed de novo but credibility findings are given deference)
- Brown v. Brown, 362 S.C. 85 (Ct. App. 2004) (child’s best interest is paramount in custody disputes)
- Spreeuw v. Barker, 385 S.C. 45 (Ct. App. 2009) (joint custody is disfavored and permitted only in exceptional circumstances)
- Patel v. Patel, 347 S.C. 281 (2001) (factors family court must consider in best-interest custody analysis)
- Green v. Green, 327 S.C. 577 (Ct. App. 1997) (family court lacks authority to modify final property divisions except to correct clerical errors)
- Swentor v. Swentor, 336 S.C. 472 (Ct. App. 1999) (parties may contract to resolve equitable distribution and family court has jurisdiction over such agreements)