Moore factors in South Carolina

2019Servs. v. King, 369 S.C. 96, 104 , 631 S.E.2d 239, 243 (2006) ("The Moore factors cannot apply in the [TPR] situation because that situation is governed by statute."). and costs, the court must take into account: (1) the complexity of the issues before the court; (2) the contentiousness of the litigation; (3) the time expended by the guardian; (4) the expenses reasonably incurred by the guardian; (5) the financial ability of each party to pay fees and costs; and (6) any other factors the court considers necessary."); see also Loe v. Mother, 382 S.C. 457, 473 , 675 S.E.2d 807, 816 (Ct. App. 200

2019Servs. v. King, 369 S.C. 96, 104 , 631 S.E.2d 239, 243 (2006) ("The Moore factors cannot apply in the [TPR] situation because that situation is governed by statute."). and costs, the court must take into account: (1) the complexity of the issues before the court; (2) the contentiousness of the litigation; (3) the time expended by the guardian; (4) the expenses reasonably incurred by the guardian; (5) the financial ability of each party to pay fees and costs; and (6) any other factors the court considers necessary."); see also Loe v. Mother, 382 S.C. 457, 473 , 675 S.E.2d 807, 816 (Ct. App. 200

2022Moore factors Mother argues the family court erred in applying the factors of Moore v. Moore, 300 S.C. 75 , 79–80, 386 S.E.2d 456 , 458–59 (1989), in its custody determination because Mother "always had custody of her two minor children.

2022Moore factors Mother argues the family court erred in applying the factors of Moore v. Moore, 300 S.C. 75 , 79–80, 386 S.E.2d 456 , 458–59 (1989), in its custody determination because Mother "always had custody of her two minor children.

2018See, e.g. , Baker v. Wolfe , 333 S.C. 605 , 610, 510 S.E.2d 726 , 729 (Ct. App. 1998) (finding the Moore factors did not apply because a mother voluntarily relinquished custody of her children to the children's father, not a third party).

2018See, e.g. , Baker v. Wolfe , 333 S.C. 605 , 610, 510 S.E.2d 726 , 729 (Ct. App. 1998) (finding the Moore factors did not apply because a mother voluntarily relinquished custody of her children to the children's father, not a third party).

2019Although the family court initially refused to allow argument or testimony regarding the limited power of attorney and the circumstances surrounding Lawson's relinquishment of custody, sufficient evidence exists to prove Lawson's relinquishment was temporary and she did not "waive [her] priority status as a biological parent to reclaim custody." See Harrison v. Ballington, 330 S.C. 298, 302 , 498 S.E.2d 680, 682 (Ct. App. 1998) (finding the Moore factors applied when the father's relinquishment was not permanent and eventual return of the child to the father was contemplated by the parties to

2019Although the family court initially refused to allow argument or testimony regarding the limited power of attorney and the circumstances surrounding Lawson's relinquishment of custody, sufficient evidence exists to prove Lawson's relinquishment was temporary and she did not "waive [her] priority status as a biological parent to reclaim custody." See Harrison v. Ballington, 330 S.C. 298, 302 , 498 S.E.2d 680, 682 (Ct. App. 1998) (finding the Moore factors applied when the father's relinquishment was not permanent and eventual return of the child to the father was contemplated by the parties to

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW "In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo." Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011). "[W]hile this court has the authority to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence, 'we recognize the superior position of the family court judge in making credibility determinations.'" Lewis v. Lewis, 400 S.C. 354, 361 , 734 S.E.2d 322, 325 (Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 392 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011)).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW "In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo." Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011). "[W]hile this court has the authority to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence, 'we recognize the superior position of the family court judge in making credibility determinations.'" Lewis v. Lewis, 400 S.C. 354, 361 , 734 S.E.2d 322, 325 (Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 392 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011)).

2019Servs. v. King, 369 S.C. 96, 104 , 631 S.E.2d 239, 243 (2006) ("The Moore factors cannot apply in the [TPR] situation because that situation is governed by statute."). and costs, the court must take into account: (1) the complexity of the issues before the court; (2) the contentiousness of the litigation; (3) the time expended by the guardian; (4) the expenses reasonably incurred by the guardian; (5) the financial ability of each party to pay fees and costs; and (6) any other factors the court considers necessary."); see also Loe v. Mother, 382 S.C. 457, 473 , 675 S.E.2d 807, 816 (Ct. App. 200

2019Servs. v. King, 369 S.C. 96, 104 , 631 S.E.2d 239, 243 (2006) ("The Moore factors cannot apply in the [TPR] situation because that situation is governed by statute."). and costs, the court must take into account: (1) the complexity of the issues before the court; (2) the contentiousness of the litigation; (3) the time expended by the guardian; (4) the expenses reasonably incurred by the guardian; (5) the financial ability of each party to pay fees and costs; and (6) any other factors the court considers necessary."); see also Loe v. Mother, 382 S.C. 457, 473 , 675 S.E.2d 807, 816 (Ct. App. 200

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW "In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo." Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011). "[W]hile this court has the authority to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence, 'we recognize the superior position of the family court judge in making credibility determinations.'" Lewis v. Lewis, 400 S.C. 354, 361 , 734 S.E.2d 322, 325 (Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 392 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011)).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW "In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo." Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011). "[W]hile this court has the authority to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence, 'we recognize the superior position of the family court judge in making credibility determinations.'" Lewis v. Lewis, 400 S.C. 354, 361 , 734 S.E.2d 322, 325 (Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 392 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011)).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW "In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo." Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011). "[W]hile this court has the authority to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence, 'we recognize the superior position of the family court judge in making credibility determinations.'" Lewis v. Lewis, 400 S.C. 354, 361 , 734 S.E.2d 322, 325 (Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 392 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011)).

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW "In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo." Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011). "[W]hile this court has the authority to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence, 'we recognize the superior position of the family court judge in making credibility determinations.'" Lewis v. Lewis, 400 S.C. 354, 361 , 734 S.E.2d 322, 325 (Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 392 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011)).

2019Servs. v. King, 369 S.C. 96, 104 , 631 S.E.2d 239, 243 (2006) ("The Moore factors cannot apply in the [TPR] situation because that situation is governed by statute."). and costs, the court must take into account: (1) the complexity of the issues before the court; (2) the contentiousness of the litigation; (3) the time expended by the guardian; (4) the expenses reasonably incurred by the guardian; (5) the financial ability of each party to pay fees and costs; and (6) any other factors the court considers necessary."); see also Loe v. Mother, 382 S.C. 457, 473 , 675 S.E.2d 807, 816 (Ct. App. 200

2019Servs. v. King, 369 S.C. 96, 104 , 631 S.E.2d 239, 243 (2006) ("The Moore factors cannot apply in the [TPR] situation because that situation is governed by statute."). and costs, the court must take into account: (1) the complexity of the issues before the court; (2) the contentiousness of the litigation; (3) the time expended by the guardian; (4) the expenses reasonably incurred by the guardian; (5) the financial ability of each party to pay fees and costs; and (6) any other factors the court considers necessary."); see also Loe v. Mother, 382 S.C. 457, 473 , 675 S.E.2d 807, 816 (Ct. App. 200

2017See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc. , 335 S.C. 598 , 613, 518 S.E.2d 591 , 598 (1999) (stating an appellate court need not address remaining issue when disposition of prior issue is dispositive).

2017See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc. , 335 S.C. 598 , 613, 518 S.E.2d 591 , 598 (1999) (stating an appellate court need not address remaining issue when disposition of prior issue is dispositive).

2017See Buist, 410 S.C. at 574-75 , 766 S.E.2d at 383-84 (2014) ("While 'a party is not required to use the exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve the issue,' the party nonetheless must be sufficiently clear in framing his objection so as to draw the court's attention to the precise nature of the alleged error." (quoting Herron, 395 S.C. at 466 , 719 S.E.2d at 642 )).

2017See Buist, 410 S.C. at 574-75 , 766 S.E.2d at 383-84 (2014) ("While 'a party is not required to use the exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve the issue,' the party nonetheless must be sufficiently clear in framing his objection so as to draw the court's attention to the precise nature of the alleged error." (quoting Herron, 395 S.C. at 466 , 719 S.E.2d at 642 )).

2017See Buist, 410 S.C. at 574-75 , 766 S.E.2d at 383-84 (2014) ("While 'a party is not required to use the exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve the issue,' the party nonetheless must be sufficiently clear in framing his objection so as to draw the court's attention to the precise nature of the alleged error." (quoting Herron, 395 S.C. at 466 , 719 S.E.2d at 642 )).

2017See Buist, 410 S.C. at 574-75 , 766 S.E.2d at 383-84 (2014) ("While 'a party is not required to use the exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve the issue,' the party nonetheless must be sufficiently clear in framing his objection so as to draw the court's attention to the precise nature of the alleged error." (quoting Herron, 395 S.C. at 466 , 719 S.E.2d at 642 )).

2015As to whether the trial court erred in denying Moore's motion for a mistrial: State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-12 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); id. ("No issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the judge's ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection to the sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a mistrial."); State v. Heller, 399 S.C. 157, 174 , 731 S.E.2d 312, 321 (C

2015As to whether the trial court erred in denying Moore's motion for a mistrial: State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-12 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); id. ("No issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the judge's ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection to the sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a mistrial."); State v. Heller, 399 S.C. 157, 174 , 731 S.E.2d 312, 321 (C

2015As to whether the trial court erred by not making specific findings of fact on the record that Moore received notice of his right to be present and was warned the trial would proceed in his absence: Rule 16, SCRCrimP ("[A] person indicted for misdemeanors and/or felonies may voluntarily waive his right to be present and may be tried in his absence upon a finding by the court that such person has received notice of his right to be present and that a warning was given that the trial would proceed in his absence upon a failure to attend the court."); State v. Williams, 292 S.C. 231, 232 , 355 S.E

2015As to whether the trial court erred by not making specific findings of fact on the record that Moore received notice of his right to be present and was warned the trial would proceed in his absence: Rule 16, SCRCrimP ("[A] person indicted for misdemeanors and/or felonies may voluntarily waive his right to be present and may be tried in his absence upon a finding by the court that such person has received notice of his right to be present and that a warning was given that the trial would proceed in his absence upon a failure to attend the court."); State v. Williams, 292 S.C. 231, 232 , 355 S.E

2015It may, however, be admissible to show motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent."); State v. Clasby, 385 S.C. 148, 154 , 682 S.E.2d 892, 895 (2009) (stating "[t]he trial judge has considerable latitude in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and his decision should not be disturbed absent prejudicial abuse of discretion" in reviewing the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b)); Rule 403, SCRE (stating "evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice"); State v.

2015It may, however, be admissible to show motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent."); State v. Clasby, 385 S.C. 148, 154 , 682 S.E.2d 892, 895 (2009) (stating "[t]he trial judge has considerable latitude in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and his decision should not be disturbed absent prejudicial abuse of discretion" in reviewing the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b)); Rule 403, SCRE (stating "evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice"); State v.

2015As to whether the trial court erred in denying Moore's motion for a mistrial: State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-12 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); id. ("No issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the judge's ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection to the sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a mistrial."); State v. Heller, 399 S.C. 157, 174 , 731 S.E.2d 312, 321 (C

2015As to whether the trial court erred in denying Moore's motion for a mistrial: State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-12 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); id. ("No issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the judge's ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection to the sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a mistrial."); State v. Heller, 399 S.C. 157, 174 , 731 S.E.2d 312, 321 (C

2015It may, however, be admissible to show motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent."); State v. Clasby, 385 S.C. 148, 154 , 682 S.E.2d 892, 895 (2009) (stating "[t]he trial judge has considerable latitude in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and his decision should not be disturbed absent prejudicial abuse of discretion" in reviewing the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b)); Rule 403, SCRE (stating "evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice"); State v.

2015It may, however, be admissible to show motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent."); State v. Clasby, 385 S.C. 148, 154 , 682 S.E.2d 892, 895 (2009) (stating "[t]he trial judge has considerable latitude in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and his decision should not be disturbed absent prejudicial abuse of discretion" in reviewing the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b)); Rule 403, SCRE (stating "evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice"); State v.

2015It may, however, be admissible to show motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent."); State v. Clasby, 385 S.C. 148, 154 , 682 S.E.2d 892, 895 (2009) (stating "[t]he trial judge has considerable latitude in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and his decision should not be disturbed absent prejudicial abuse of discretion" in reviewing the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b)); Rule 403, SCRE (stating "evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice"); State v.

2015It may, however, be admissible to show motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent."); State v. Clasby, 385 S.C. 148, 154 , 682 S.E.2d 892, 895 (2009) (stating "[t]he trial judge has considerable latitude in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and his decision should not be disturbed absent prejudicial abuse of discretion" in reviewing the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b)); Rule 403, SCRE (stating "evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice"); State v.

2013See State v. Tindall, 388 S.C. 518 , 523 n. 5, 698 S.E.2d 203 , 206 n. 5 (2010) (summarizing our standard of review — “we must ask first, whether the record supports the trial court’s assumed findings ... and second, whether these facts support a finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion of a serious crime”).

2013See State v. Tindall, 388 S.C. 518 , 523 n. 5, 698 S.E.2d 203 , 206 n. 5 (2010) (summarizing our standard of review — “we must ask first, whether the record supports the trial court’s assumed findings ... and second, whether these facts support a finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion of a serious crime”).

2012We hold the trial court did not err in granting Moore's motion for summary judgment on Smith's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. "[W]hen ruling on a summary judgment motion, a court must determine whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case as to each element of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress." Hansson v. Scalise Builders of S.C., 374 S.C. 352, 358 , 650 S.E.2d 68, 71 (2007).

2012We hold the trial court did not err in granting Moore's motion for summary judgment on Smith's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. "[W]hen ruling on a summary judgment motion, a court must determine whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case as to each element of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress." Hansson v. Scalise Builders of S.C., 374 S.C. 352, 358 , 650 S.E.2d 68, 71 (2007).

2009The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling, and began its analysis with the Keith opinion, which it interpreted to support “the continuous offense theory.” This theory “provides that [a robbery] has occurred not only if the perpetrator uses force or intimidation to take possession of the property, but also if force or intimidation is used to retain possession immediately after the taking, or to carry away the property, or to facilitate escape.” 2 Id. (quoting State v. Meyers, 620 So.2d 1160, 1163 (La.1993)).

2007Accordingly, the family court did not err in failing to consider the Moore factors in its determination of Child’s removal from the home. “[T]he welfare of the child and what is in his/her best interest is the primary, paramount and controlling consideration of the court in all child custody controversies.” Davis v. Davis , 356 S.C. 132, 135 , 588 S.E.2d 102, 103-04 (2003) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

2007Accordingly, the family court did not err in failing to consider the Moore factors in its determination of Child’s removal from the home. “[T]he welfare of the child and what is in his/her best interest is the primary, paramount and controlling consideration of the court in all child custody controversies.” Davis v. Davis , 356 S.C. 132, 135 , 588 S.E.2d 102, 103-04 (2003) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

2006See, e.g., Malpass v. Hodson, 309 S.C. 397 , 424 S.E.2d 470 (1992) (factors used in case where mother sought to regain custody after voluntarily relinquishing custody to maternal grandparents while in abusive relationship); Dodge v. Dodge, 332 S.C. 401 , 505 S.E.2d 344 (Ct.App.1998) (factors used in case where father sought to regain custody after voluntarily relinquishing custody to grandparents).

2006See, e.g., Malpass v. Hodson, 309 S.C. 397 , 424 S.E.2d 470 (1992) (factors used in case where mother sought to regain custody after voluntarily relinquishing custody to maternal grandparents while in abusive relationship); Dodge v. Dodge, 332 S.C. 401 , 505 S.E.2d 344 (Ct.App.1998) (factors used in case where father sought to regain custody after voluntarily relinquishing custody to grandparents).