Full text
Kanitz v. Mangrum
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.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Lynn Marie Kanitz, Respondent,
v.
Neil Treavor Mangrum, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2011-194287
Appeal From Greenville County Rochelle Y. Conits, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-032 Submitted December 3, 2012 – Filed January 16, 2013
AFFIRMED
Neil Treavor Mangrum, of Greer, pro se.
Lynn Marie Kanitz, of Greer, pro se.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the family court erred in finding Mangrum in contempt for violating a visitation provision in his divorce order: Argabright v. Argabright, 398 S.C. 176, 179, 727 S.E.2d 748, 750 (2012) (noting the standard of review in appeals from the family court is de novo); Hawkins v. Mullins, 359 S.C. 497, 501,
597 S.E.2d 897, 899 (Ct. App. 2004) ("A party may be found in contempt of court for the willful violation of a lawful court order.").
2. As to whether the family court erred in finding Mangrum in contempt for violating a restraining order against confrontation and harassment of the other party in the presence of their minor child: Argabright, 398 S.C. at 179, 727 S.E.2d at 750 (noting the standard of review in appeals from the family court is de novo); Hawkins, 359 S.C. at 501, 597 S.E.2d at 899 ("A party may be found in contempt of court for the willful violation of a lawful court order.").
3. As to whether the family court erred in awarding Kanitz attorney's fees: Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 510, 722 S.E.2d 222, 223 (2012) (stating an appellate court reviews the family court's grant of attorney's fees de novo); Miller v. Miller, 375 S.C. 443, 463, 652 S.E.2d 754, 764 (Ct. App. 2007) ("Courts, by exercising their contempt power, can award attorney's fees under a compensatory contempt theory.").
AFFIRMED.1
FEW, C.J., and WILLIAMS and PIEPER, JJ., concur.
1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.