respondent to establish defense in South Carolina

2023"Once the movant makes a prima facie showing by pleading an order and demonstrating noncompliance, 'the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply.'" Eaddy v. Oliver, 345 S.C. 39, 42 , 545 S.E.2d 830, 832 (Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Henderson v. Henderson, 298 S.C. 190, 197 , 379 S.E.2d 125, 129 (1989)). "[B]efore a court may find a person in contempt, the record must clearly and specifically reflect the contemptuous conduct." Widman v. Widman, 348 S.C. 97, 119 , 557 S.E.2d 693, 705 (Ct. App. 2001).

2023"Once the movant makes a prima facie showing by pleading an order and demonstrating noncompliance, 'the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply.'" Eaddy v. Oliver, 345 S.C. 39, 42 , 545 S.E.2d 830, 832 (Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Henderson v. Henderson, 298 S.C. 190, 197 , 379 S.E.2d 125, 129 (1989)). "[B]efore a court may find a person in contempt, the record must clearly and specifically reflect the contemptuous conduct." Widman v. Widman, 348 S.C. 97, 119 , 557 S.E.2d 693, 705 (Ct. App. 2001).

2023"Once the movant makes a prima facie showing by pleading an order and demonstrating noncompliance, 'the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply.'" Eaddy v. Oliver, 345 S.C. 39, 42 , 545 S.E.2d 830, 832 (Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Henderson v. Henderson, 298 S.C. 190, 197 , 379 S.E.2d 125, 129 (1989)). "[B]efore a court may find a person in contempt, the record must clearly and specifically reflect the contemptuous conduct." Widman v. Widman, 348 S.C. 97, 119 , 557 S.E.2d 693, 705 (Ct. App. 2001).

2023"Once the movant makes a prima facie showing by pleading an order and demonstrating noncompliance, 'the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply.'" Eaddy v. Oliver, 345 S.C. 39, 42 , 545 S.E.2d 830, 832 (Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Henderson v. Henderson, 298 S.C. 190, 197 , 379 S.E.2d 125, 129 (1989)). "[B]efore a court may find a person in contempt, the record must clearly and specifically reflect the contemptuous conduct." Widman v. Widman, 348 S.C. 97, 119 , 557 S.E.2d 693, 705 (Ct. App. 2001).

2021Servs. v. Johnson, 386 S.C. 426, 435 , 688 S.E.2d 588, 592 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Once a moving party makes out a prima facie case of contempt by pleading the order and showing its noncompliance, the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply."); Daily v. Daily, Op. No. 5801 (S.C.

2021Servs. v. Johnson, 386 S.C. 426, 435 , 688 S.E.2d 588, 592 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Once a moving party makes out a prima facie case of contempt by pleading the order and showing its noncompliance, the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply."); Daily v. Daily, Op. No. 5801 (S.C.

2020Servs. v. Johnson, 386 S.C. 426, 435 , 688 S.E.2d 588, 592 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Once a moving party makes out a prima facie case of contempt by pleading the order and showing its noncompliance, the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply." (emphasis added)); Miller v. Miller, 375 S.C. 443, 456 , 652 S.E.2d 754, 761 (Ct. App. 2007) (providing that criminal contempt is a punitive measure employed to preserve the family court's authority and to punish for disobedience of its orders); DiMarco v. DiMarco, 393 S.C. 604, 607 , 713 S.E.2d 631, 633 (2011) ("Crimina

2020Servs. v. Johnson, 386 S.C. 426, 435 , 688 S.E.2d 588, 592 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Once a moving party makes out a prima facie case of contempt by pleading the order and showing its noncompliance, the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply." (emphasis added)); Miller v. Miller, 375 S.C. 443, 456 , 652 S.E.2d 754, 761 (Ct. App. 2007) (providing that criminal contempt is a punitive measure employed to preserve the family court's authority and to punish for disobedience of its orders); DiMarco v. DiMarco, 393 S.C. 604, 607 , 713 S.E.2d 631, 633 (2011) ("Crimina

2020Servs. v. Johnson, 386 S.C. 426, 435 , 688 S.E.2d 588, 592 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Once a moving party makes out a prima facie case of contempt by pleading the order and showing its noncompliance, the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply." (emphasis added)); Miller v. Miller, 375 S.C. 443, 456 , 652 S.E.2d 754, 761 (Ct. App. 2007) (providing that criminal contempt is a punitive measure employed to preserve the family court's authority and to punish for disobedience of its orders); DiMarco v. DiMarco, 393 S.C. 604, 607 , 713 S.E.2d 631, 633 (2011) ("Crimina

2020Servs. v. Johnson, 386 S.C. 426, 435 , 688 S.E.2d 588, 592 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Once a moving party makes out a prima facie case of contempt by pleading the order and showing its noncompliance, the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply." (emphasis added)); Miller v. Miller, 375 S.C. 443, 456 , 652 S.E.2d 754, 761 (Ct. App. 2007) (providing that criminal contempt is a punitive measure employed to preserve the family court's authority and to punish for disobedience of its orders); DiMarco v. DiMarco, 393 S.C. 604, 607 , 713 S.E.2d 631, 633 (2011) ("Crimina

2020Servs. v. Johnson, 386 S.C. 426, 435 , 688 S.E.2d 588, 592 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Once a moving party makes out a prima facie case of contempt by pleading the order and showing its noncompliance, the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply." (emphasis added)); Miller v. Miller, 375 S.C. 443, 456 , 652 S.E.2d 754, 761 (Ct. App. 2007) (providing that criminal contempt is a punitive measure employed to preserve the family court's authority and to punish for disobedience of its orders); DiMarco v. DiMarco, 393 S.C. 604, 607 , 713 S.E.2d 631, 633 (2011) ("Crimina

2020Servs. v. Johnson, 386 S.C. 426, 435 , 688 S.E.2d 588, 592 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Once a moving party makes out a prima facie case of contempt by pleading the order and showing its noncompliance, the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply." (emphasis added)); Miller v. Miller, 375 S.C. 443, 456 , 652 S.E.2d 754, 761 (Ct. App. 2007) (providing that criminal contempt is a punitive measure employed to preserve the family court's authority and to punish for disobedience of its orders); DiMarco v. DiMarco, 393 S.C. 604, 607 , 713 S.E.2d 631, 633 (2011) ("Crimina

2023"Once the movant makes a prima facie showing by pleading an order and demonstrating noncompliance, 'the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply.'" Eaddy v. Oliver, 345 S.C. 39, 42 , 545 S.E.2d 830, 832 (Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Henderson v. Henderson, 298 S.C. 190, 197 , 379 S.E.2d 125, 129 (1989)). "[B]efore a court may find a person in contempt, the record must clearly and specifically reflect the contemptuous conduct." Widman v. Widman, 348 S.C. 97, 119 , 557 S.E.2d 693, 705 (Ct. App. 2001).

2023"Once the movant makes a prima facie showing by pleading an order and demonstrating noncompliance, 'the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply.'" Eaddy v. Oliver, 345 S.C. 39, 42 , 545 S.E.2d 830, 832 (Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Henderson v. Henderson, 298 S.C. 190, 197 , 379 S.E.2d 125, 129 (1989)). "[B]efore a court may find a person in contempt, the record must clearly and specifically reflect the contemptuous conduct." Widman v. Widman, 348 S.C. 97, 119 , 557 S.E.2d 693, 705 (Ct. App. 2001).

2023"A finding of contempt . . . must be reflected in a record that is 'clear and specific as to the acts or conduct upon which such finding is based.'" Tirado v. Tirado, 339 S.C. 649, 654 , 530 S.E.2d 128, 131 (Ct. App. 2000) (quoting Curlee v. Howle, 277 S.C. 377, 382 , 287 S.E.2d 915 , 918 (1982)). "[C]ontempt results from willful disobedience of a court order; . . . before a person may be held in contempt, the record must be clear and specific as to acts or conduct upon which the contempt is based." Cheap-O's Truck Stop, Inc. v. Cloyd, 350 S.C. 596, 607 , 567 S.E.2d 514, 519 (Ct. App. 2002) (q

2023"A finding of contempt . . . must be reflected in a record that is 'clear and specific as to the acts or conduct upon which such finding is based.'" Tirado v. Tirado, 339 S.C. 649, 654 , 530 S.E.2d 128, 131 (Ct. App. 2000) (quoting Curlee v. Howle, 277 S.C. 377, 382 , 287 S.E.2d 915 , 918 (1982)). "[C]ontempt results from willful disobedience of a court order; . . . before a person may be held in contempt, the record must be clear and specific as to acts or conduct upon which the contempt is based." Cheap-O's Truck Stop, Inc. v. Cloyd, 350 S.C. 596, 607 , 567 S.E.2d 514, 519 (Ct. App. 2002) (q

2023"A finding of contempt . . . must be reflected in a record that is 'clear and specific as to the acts or conduct upon which such finding is based.'" Tirado v. Tirado, 339 S.C. 649, 654 , 530 S.E.2d 128, 131 (Ct. App. 2000) (quoting Curlee v. Howle, 277 S.C. 377, 382 , 287 S.E.2d 915 , 918 (1982)). "[C]ontempt results from willful disobedience of a court order; . . . before a person may be held in contempt, the record must be clear and specific as to acts or conduct upon which the contempt is based." Cheap-O's Truck Stop, Inc. v. Cloyd, 350 S.C. 596, 607 , 567 S.E.2d 514, 519 (Ct. App. 2002) (q

2023"A finding of contempt . . . must be reflected in a record that is 'clear and specific as to the acts or conduct upon which such finding is based.'" Tirado v. Tirado, 339 S.C. 649, 654 , 530 S.E.2d 128, 131 (Ct. App. 2000) (quoting Curlee v. Howle, 277 S.C. 377, 382 , 287 S.E.2d 915 , 918 (1982)). "[C]ontempt results from willful disobedience of a court order; . . . before a person may be held in contempt, the record must be clear and specific as to acts or conduct upon which the contempt is based." Cheap-O's Truck Stop, Inc. v. Cloyd, 350 S.C. 596, 607 , 567 S.E.2d 514, 519 (Ct. App. 2002) (q

2020As to whether the family court erred in awarding Wife attorney's fees and costs: Doe v. Roe, 369 S.C. 351 , 375–76, 631 S.E.2d 317, 330 (Ct. App. 2006) (providing that an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the family court to be preserved for appellate review); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 625 , 576 S.E.2d 156, 163 (2003) ("A due process claim raised for the first time on appeal is not preserved."); id. (finding the husband's due process issue was unpreserved for appellate review when he failed to raise a due process issue to the family court and failed to file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, m

2020As to whether the family court erred in awarding Wife attorney's fees and costs: Doe v. Roe, 369 S.C. 351 , 375–76, 631 S.E.2d 317, 330 (Ct. App. 2006) (providing that an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the family court to be preserved for appellate review); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 625 , 576 S.E.2d 156, 163 (2003) ("A due process claim raised for the first time on appeal is not preserved."); id. (finding the husband's due process issue was unpreserved for appellate review when he failed to raise a due process issue to the family court and failed to file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, m

2020Servs. v. Johnson, 386 S.C. 426, 435 , 688 S.E.2d 588, 592 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Once a moving party makes out a prima facie case of contempt by pleading the order and showing its noncompliance, the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply."); Miller v. Miller, 375 S.C. 443, 454 , 652 S.E.2d 754, 760 (Ct. App. 2007) (providing that the family court has the discretion to punish by fine or imprisonment all contempt of authority before the court); id. at 455 , 652 S.E.2d at 760 ("In addition, courts have the inherent power to punish for offenses that are calcul

2020Servs. v. Johnson, 386 S.C. 426, 435 , 688 S.E.2d 588, 592 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Once a moving party makes out a prima facie case of contempt by pleading the order and showing its noncompliance, the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply."); Miller v. Miller, 375 S.C. 443, 454 , 652 S.E.2d 754, 760 (Ct. App. 2007) (providing that the family court has the discretion to punish by fine or imprisonment all contempt of authority before the court); id. at 455 , 652 S.E.2d at 760 ("In addition, courts have the inherent power to punish for offenses that are calcul

2020As to whether the family court erred in awarding Wife attorney's fees and costs: Doe v. Roe, 369 S.C. 351 , 375–76, 631 S.E.2d 317, 330 (Ct. App. 2006) (providing that an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the family court to be preserved for appellate review); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 625 , 576 S.E.2d 156, 163 (2003) ("A due process claim raised for the first time on appeal is not preserved."); id. (finding the husband's due process issue was unpreserved for appellate review when he failed to raise a due process issue to the family court and failed to file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, m

2020As to whether the family court erred in awarding Wife attorney's fees and costs: Doe v. Roe, 369 S.C. 351 , 375–76, 631 S.E.2d 317, 330 (Ct. App. 2006) (providing that an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the family court to be preserved for appellate review); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 625 , 576 S.E.2d 156, 163 (2003) ("A due process claim raised for the first time on appeal is not preserved."); id. (finding the husband's due process issue was unpreserved for appellate review when he failed to raise a due process issue to the family court and failed to file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, m

2001Once the movant makes a prima facie showing by pleading an order and demonstrating noncompliance, “the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply.” Id.; see also Lindsay v. Lindsay, 328 S.C. 329, 338 , 491 S.E.2d 583, 588 (Ct.App.1997) (“[T]he moving party must show the existence of a court order and the facts establishing the respondent’s noncompliance with the order.”).

2001Once the movant makes a prima facie showing by pleading an order and demonstrating noncompliance, “the burden shifts to the respondent to establish his defense and inability to comply.” Id.; see also Lindsay v. Lindsay, 328 S.C. 329, 338 , 491 S.E.2d 583, 588 (Ct.App.1997) (“[T]he moving party must show the existence of a court order and the facts establishing the respondent’s noncompliance with the order.”).