795 S.E.2d 49
S.C. Ct. App.2016Background
- Stone sued Thompson in family court asserting a common-law marriage and seeking divorce, equitable apportionment, attorney’s fees, and other relief.
- Thompson moved to bifurcate; the family court tried only the common-law marriage issue first and found a common-law marriage existed, awarded fees, and instructed scheduling of the final hearing on remaining issues.
- The family court’s written order was marked “Final” but included a handwritten notation that divorce and equitable distribution remained pending.
- Thompson appealed the interlocutory order finding a common-law marriage; Stone moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of appealability.
- The court considered whether the order was (a) a final judgment, (b) an immediately appealable intermediate order under S.C. Code § 14-3-330(1) as involving the merits, or (c) immediately appealable under § 14-3-330(2) as affecting a substantial right/mode of trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the family court order finding a common-law marriage is a final judgment appealable immediately | Thompson: The order is final under § 14-3-330(1) and thus immediately appealable | Stone: Order is interlocutory because divorce and equitable distribution remain pending; not final | Court: Not a final judgment — further proceedings remain; order interlocutory |
| Whether the order is an intermediate order "involving the merits" under § 14-3-330(1) and thus immediately appealable | Thompson: The court finally decided the substantive defense (no valid marriage) so it involves the merits | Stone: Issue was preliminary to divorce/equitable division; bifurcation was discretionary and does not render the order appealable | Court: Not appealable under § 14-3-330(1); the common-law marriage determination was preliminary and did not end the litigation |
| Whether the order affects a substantial right or "mode of trial" under § 14-3-330(2) making it immediately appealable | Thompson: Finding of marriage affects her fundamental right and could deprive her of jury trial in related circuit-court claims | Stone: Family court retained jurisdiction; any circuit claims are separate and speculative; no deprivation of a trial mode now | Court: Not appealable under § 14-3-330(2); no present denial of a mode of trial and errors can be reviewed on appeal after final judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Mid-State Distribs., Inc. v. Century Imps., 310 S.C. 330 (1993) (definition of an order "involving the merits" and interlocutory order test)
- Hagood v. Sommerville, 362 S.C. 191 (2005) (narrow construction of § 14-3-330 and discouraging piecemeal appeals)
- Breland v. Love Chevrolet Olds, Inc., 339 S.C. 89 (2000) (subsection (2) used when a substantial right or mode of trial cannot be vindicated after final judgment)
- Flagstar Corp. v. Royal Surplus Lines, 341 S.C. 68 (2000) (mode-of-trial analysis for immediate appealability)
- Good v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 201 S.C. 32 (1942) (warning against endless delays from interlocutory appeals)
- Woodard v. Westvaco Corp., 319 S.C. 240 (1995) (order denying dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction not immediately appealable)