Marcello v. Marcello is an unpublished August 2020 opinion from the Court of Appeals.  In Marcello, co-counsel, William Hammett, and I prosecuted a rule to show cause.  We were mostly successful in establishing contempt.  However, the trial court did not find mother in contempt for being repeatedly late to visitation exchanges.  The trial court further amended the final order to give the parties a thirty-minute grace period for exchanges.  The trial court only granted our client approximately 40% of his fees and costs.

We appealed those three issues and, disappointly, lost.  The Court of Appeals found mother made a good faith effort to be on time and appeared to give deference to the trial court’s credibility determination.  What the opinion fails to note is mother repeated lied about her arrival time at the visitation exchanges and was repeatedly late.  The family court simply created its own “grace period.”

The Court of Appeals found we failed to preserve the grace period and attorney fee issue.  We didn’t file a motion to reconsider the grace period issue (the case was from Spartanburg County and a motion to reconsider would have been costly in travel related fees).  I thought that a finding that “Only $4,500 of this fee claim is reasonable” was sufficient to be “raised and ruled upon.”  However, by the time this opinion came out, my client had obtained custody in a subsequent proceeding and decided not to seek certiorari.

Put Mr. Forman’s experience, knowledge, and dedication to your service for any of your South Carolina family law needs.

Recent Blog Posts

In South Carolina family court, is all social media usage discoverable?

In divorce or child custody cases, I personally don’t like issuing broad discovery requests for the opposing party’s social media usage.  Until a

[ + ] Read More

Once an attorney makes an appearance, that attorney can be served with the summons and complaint

If I have knowledge that a family law matter has been filed against an existing client, I will often file my notice of

[ + ] Read More

Supreme Court holds Husband’s successive but timely Rule 59(e) motion stayed Wife’s time to appeal

The March 12, 2025, Supreme Court opinion in Swing v. Swing reinstated an appeal that the Court of Appeals had dismissed as untimely.

[ + ] Read More