Rule 26. Orders

• Library: South Carolina Rules Annotated (SCBar) (2020 Ed.)

RULE 26. ORDERS

(a) Findings of Fact.

An order or judgment pursuant to an adjudication in a domestic relations case shall set forth specific findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the court's decision.

(b) Certification.

By signing his name to an order in a domestic relations case, the judge certifies compliance with this rule.

(c) Time for Issuing.

Except under exceptional circumstances, an order in a domestic relations case shall be issued as soon as possible after the hearing, but not later than 30 days thereafter.

Annotations Rule 26

26

"The family court may change the amount of alimony previously awarded when substantial changes in circumstances warrant a change." Hayes v. Hayes, 312 S.C. 141, 439 S.E.2d 305, 307 (Ct. App. 1993).

Appeal

"[W]hen an order from the family court is issued in violation of Rule 26(a), SCRFC, the appellate court 'may remand the matter to the trial court or, where the record is sufficient, make its own findings of fact in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence.'" Barrow v. Barrow, 394 S.C. 603, 615-16, 716 S.E.2d 302, 309 (Ct. App. 2011).

"When an order of the family court violates Rule 26(a), SCRFC, by failing to set forth specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, this court may remand the matter to the family court or make its own findings of fact in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence if the record is sufficient to allow such a review." Wannamaker v. Wannamaker, 395 S.C. 592, 719 S.E.2d 261, 264 (Ct. App. 2011).

"Generally, where an order of the Family Court fails to comply with Rule 26(a), the appellate court should reverse and remand so the Family Court may make specific findings of fact. 'However, when an order from the family court is issued in violation of Rule 26(a), SCRFC, the appellate court 'may remand the matter to the trial court or, where the record is sufficient, make its own findings of fact in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence.'" Badeaux v. Davis, 337 S.C. 195, 522 S.E.2d 835, (Ct. App. 1999).

"On appeal from the family court, this court has jurisdiction to correct errors of law and find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence." Clear v. Clear, 331 S.C. 186, 500 S.E.2d 790 (Ct. App. 1998).

"This court has jurisdiction, in domestic matters, to find the facts in accordance with our own view of the preponderance of the evidence. This scope of review, however, does not require us to disregard the findings of the family court. Neither are we required to ignore the fact that the family court judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their testimony." Calhoun v. Calhoun, 331 S.C. 157, 501 S.E.2d 735 (Ct. App. 1998) affirmed in part, reversed in part 339 S.C. 96, 529 S.E.2d 14 (2000).

"In appeals from the family court, the Court of Appeals has the authority to find the facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. This broad scope of review does not, however, require this Court to disregard the findings of the family court." Charest v. Charest, 329 S.C. 511, 495 S.E.2d 784, 786 (Ct. App. 1997).

"In appeals from the family court, the Court of Appeals has the authority to find the facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. This broad scope of review does not, however, require this court to disregard the findings of the family court. Neither are we required to ignore the fact that the trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony." Hatfield v. Hatfield, 327 S.C. 360, 489 S.E.2d 212, 214 (Ct. App. 1997).

"In appeals from the family court, we have jurisdiction to find the facts in accordance with our own view of the preponderance of the evidence. This broad scope of review, however, does not require us to disregard the findings of the lower court. Neither are we required to ignore the fact that the trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony." Tinsley v. Tinsley, 326 S.C. 374, 483 S.E.2d 198, 201 (Ct. App. 1997).

"An appellate court...