Saylor v. Brown

Full title: Marcus V. Saylor, Appellant, v. Renee G. Brown, Respondent.

Court: STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Feb 12, 2014

Appellate Case No. 2013-000234 (S.C. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2014)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2013-000234 Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-059

02-12-2014

Marcus V. Saylor, Appellant, v. Renee G. Brown, Respondent.

Marion Clyde Fairey, Jr., of The Fairey Law Firm, LLC, of Hampton, for Appellant. Rhett Daniel Klok, of Klok Law Firm, LLC, of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

Appeal From Beaufort County

Gerald C. Smoak, Jr., Family Court Judge

AFFIRMED

Marion Clyde Fairey, Jr., of The Fairey Law Firm, LLC, of Hampton, for Appellant.

Rhett Daniel Klok, of Klok Law Firm, LLC, of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Burch v. Burch, 395 S.C. 318, 331, 717 S.E.2d 757, 764 (2011) ("In considering whether the family court erred, it is settled law in South Carolina that '[c]ourts have the inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary to insure that just results are reached to the fullest extent possible.'" (alteration by court) (quoting Buckley v. Shealy, 370 S.C. 317, 323-24, 635 S.E.2d 76, 79 (2006))); Buckley, 370 S.C. at 323, 635 S.E.2d at 79 ("[T]he family court exercised its power in equity to ensure a just result."); id. at 324, 635 S.E.2d at 79 (stating the family court may "in equity and fairness . . . carry the first court's order into effect" if its "subsequent order does not alter or substantially affect the ruling of the previous order" (citing Dinkins v. Robbins, 203 S.C. 199, 202, 26 S.E.2d 689, 690 (1943))); Watson v. Poole, 329 S.C. 232, 240, 495 S.E.2d 236, 240 (Ct. App. 1997) ("The family court is given wide latitude to take whatever actions it deems necessary in the best interest of the child."); Harris v. Harris, 307 S.C. 351, 353, 415 S.E.2d 391, 393 (1992) (stating the "[f]amily [c]ourt is vested with the exclusive jurisdiction to ensure that, in all matters concerning a child, the best interest of the child is the paramount consideration"); Hollar v. Hollar, 342 S.C. 463, 474, 536 S.E.2d 883, 889 (Ct. App. 2000) ("We entreat the parents to strive for greater cooperation and congeniality in dealing with visitation issues and exchanges."). AFFIRMED. ¹

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

FEW, C.J., and PIEPER and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.