Some of the more cryptic opinions to come out of the South Carolina Supreme Court simply state “We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals’ decision in [case name]. We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.”
Between the request for certiorari and such brief dismissals, the petitioner and his or her attorney are whipsawed through emotions: the initial burst of hope when the Supreme Court grants certiorari; the concerted, thoughtful effort of crafting briefs; the zealous attempt to persuade the Supreme Court at oral argument of the injustice done by the Court of Appeals; and, finally, the crushing realization that the Supreme Court found your argument was so weak that it didn’t merit further discussion. I imagine it would be less depressing to have certiorari denied than to have it granted but then dismissed as improvident.
When the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Biggins v. Burdette, 392 S.C. 241, 708 S.E.2d 237 (Ct.App. 2011), I was hopeful that it might provide some clarity to the 2002 amendment to S.C. Code § 20-3-150 that defined “continued cohabitation” for the purpose of terminating permanent periodic or rehabilitative alimony as:
mean[ing] the supported spouse resides with another person in a romantic relationship for a period of ninety or more consecutive days. The court may determine that a continued cohabitation exists if there is evidence that the supported spouse resides with another person in a romantic relationship for periods of less than ninety days and the two periodically separate in order to circumvent the ninety-day requirement.
Since this amendment no reported appellate decision has found a supported spouse’s cohabitation met this requirement: not Biggins; not Eason v. Eason, 384 S.C. 473, 682 S.E.2d 804 (2009); not Fiddie v. Fiddie, 384 S.C. 120, 681 S.E.2d 42 (Ct.App. 2009); not Feldman v. Feldman, 380 S.C. 538, 670 S.E.2d 669 (Ct.App.2008); not Semken v. Semken, 379 S.C. 71, 664 S.E.2d 493 (Ct.App.2008); not Strickland v. Strickland, 375 S.C. 76, 650 S.E.2d 465 (2007); not Degenhart v. Burriss, 360 S.C. 497, 602 S.E.2d 96 (Ct.App.2004).
I was hopeful that Biggins might finally determine, that in at least one case, the evidence was sufficient to terminate alimony based on “continued cohabitation.” Instead it took seven days for our Supreme Court to go from oral argument to certiorari dismissal, 401 S.C. 362, 737 S.E.2d 502 (2013). I am beginning to think that no fact pattern short of an admission of continued cohabitation by the supported spouse will be sufficient to invoke the alimony termination provision.
Next Tuesday I have the second Supreme Court oral argument of my career for a case in which I was granted certiorari. Even before today I was wary of the dreaded “DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.” My sympathies go out to Mr. Biggins and his attorney.
Good Luck on your argument.
Obviously, you have no sympathy for the Respondent whose financial life was hanging in the balance. It’s unbelievable the case went this far. The case was based on Biggins’s novel idea that his ex-wife was residing with another man for 90 days. The statute isn’t hard to interpret or written in chinese.
My sympathy was for any litigant who gets certiorari granted but then has it dismissed as improvident. I have no strong opinion on the merits of Mr. Biggins’ appeal (other than a general opinion, noted later today, that our appellate courts are making it extraordinarily difficult to terminate alimony through “continued cohabitation”).
Despite the language in the statute, in practice, the 90 day rule works more like the basketball rule “3 seconds in the lane.”
Mr. Forman, I’ve been doing some research and stumbled upon your blog here from years prior. I’ve been trying to find relevant case law to where SC has ever actually discontinued spousal support based on the “continual cohabitation” update to the statute. (Bonus if they did so retroactively after a spouse alleged it on an enforcement matter). Being a non-attorney – I don’t have access to convenient case law queries so searching is more cumbersome. Your blog was interesting though and it seemed to be an area of particular interest for you so I wondered if you ever gained any traction.