826 S.E.2d 868
S.C.2019Background
- Stone and Thompson lived together, raised children, and managed property together from 1989 until their breakup; Stone sued in family court seeking a declaratory judgment of common-law marriage, divorce, and equitable distribution.
- Thompson sought dismissal and, alternatively, asked to bifurcate the proceedings; the family court denied dismissal but granted bifurcation and tried only whether a common-law marriage existed.
- After a 7-day trial with extensive evidence, the family court found the parties were common-law married beginning in 1989 and labeled its ruling a “Final Order,” but noted divorce and equitable distribution claims remained pending.
- Thompson appealed; the court of appeals held the bifurcated common-law marriage order was interlocutory and not immediately appealable under S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330(1), so it dismissed the appeal.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the bifurcated common-law marriage determination was immediately appealable under § 14-3-330(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thompson) | Defendant's Argument (Stone) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a family court order, after bifurcation, finding a common-law marriage is immediately appealable under S.C. Code § 14-3-330(1) | The order finally determined a substantial matter forming part of Stone's causes of action and Thompson's defense, so it "involved the merits" and is appealable | The marriage finding was a preliminary/embedded element necessary for the other claims; because the case was bifurcated the order was interlocutory and not appealable | The Supreme Court reversed: the bifurcated common-law marriage order involved the merits and was immediately appealable under § 14-3-330(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mid-State Distribs, Inc. v. Century Importers, Inc., 310 S.C. 330, 426 S.E.2d 777 (1993) (defines when an order "involves the merits")
- Hagood v. Sommerville, 362 S.C. 191, 607 S.E.2d 707 (2005) (section 14-3-330 construed narrowly to avoid piecemeal appeals)
- Morrow v. Fundamental Long-Term Care Holdings, LLC, 412 S.C. 534, 773 S.E.2d 144 (2015) (appealability determined case-by-case)
- Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 518 S.E.2d 591 (1999) (do not decide remaining issues once dispositive appellate issue resolved)
- Callen v. Callen, 365 S.C. 618, 620 S.E.2d 59 (2005) (prior related treatment of bifurcated common-law marriage proceedings)
- Ex parte Capital U-Drive-It, Inc., 369 S.C. 1, 630 S.E.2d 464 (2006) (application of § 14-3-330 to family court orders)