de novo standard in South Carolina

2026No. 11 at 58) (recognizing the appellate courts review contempt orders arising out of the family court using a de novo standard of review); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 384-85 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 651 (2011) (explaining the appellate court has the authority to find the facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence in appeals from the family court); Stoney, 422 S.C. at 595, 813 S.E.2d at 487 ("[D]e novo review allows an appellate court to make its own findings of fact; however, this standard does not abrogate two long-standing principles still recognized by our courts

2026No. 11 at 58) (recognizing the appellate courts review contempt orders arising out of the family court using a de novo standard of review); Stoney, 422 S.C. at 595, 813 S.E.2d at 487 ("[D]e novo review allows an appellate court to make its own findings of fact; however, this standard does not abrogate two long-standing principles still recognized by our courts during the de novo review process: (1) a trial [court] is in a superior position to assess witness credibility, and (2) an appellant has the burden of showing the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the find

2026No. 11 at 58) (recognizing the appellate courts review contempt orders arising out of the family court using a de novo standard of review); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 384-85 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 651 (2011) (explaining the appellate court has the authority to find the facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence in appeals from the family court); Stoney, 422 S.C. at 595, 813 S.E.2d at 487 ("[D]e novo review allows an appellate court to make its own findings of fact; however, this standard does not abrogate two long-standing principles still recognized by our courts

2026No. 11 at 58) (recognizing the appellate courts review contempt orders arising out of the family court using a de novo standard of review); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 384-85 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 651 (2011) (explaining the appellate court has the authority to find the facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence in appeals from the family court); Stoney, 422 S.C. at 595, 813 S.E.2d at 487 ("[D]e novo review allows an appellate court to make its own findings of fact; however, this standard does not abrogate two long-standing principles still recognized by our courts

2021See Oskin v. Johnson, 400 S.C. 390, 396 , 735 S.E.2d 459, 463 (2012) ("A clear and convincing evidentiary standard governs fraudulent conveyance claims brought under the Statue of Elizabeth."); id. ("An action to set aside a conveyance under the Statute of Elizabeth is an equitable action, and a de novo standard of review applies."); § 27-23-10(A) ("Every . . . conveyance of lands . . . which may be had or made to or for any intent or purpose to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors and others of their just and lawful actions, suits, debts, accounts, damages, penalties, and forfeitures must be d

2021See Oskin v. Johnson, 400 S.C. 390, 396 , 735 S.E.2d 459, 463 (2012) ("A clear and convincing evidentiary standard governs fraudulent conveyance claims brought under the Statue of Elizabeth."); id. ("An action to set aside a conveyance under the Statute of Elizabeth is an equitable action, and a de novo standard of review applies."); § 27-23-10(A) ("Every . . . conveyance of lands . . . which may be had or made to or for any intent or purpose to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors and others of their just and lawful actions, suits, debts, accounts, damages, penalties, and forfeitures must be d

2004See Brown, 348 S.C. at 512 , 560 S.E.2d at 413 (noting that when reviewing a contested case on appeal, the ALJ conducts a de novo hearing with the presentation of evidence and testimony.).

2004See Brown, 348 S.C. at 512 , 560 S.E.2d at 413 (noting that when reviewing a contested case on appeal, the ALJ conducts a de novo hearing with the presentation of evidence and testimony.).

2026Nevertheless, we address this contempt question using the de novo standard of review because it is broader than the abuse of discretion 378, 381 (Ct. App. 2021) ("Civil contempt occurs when a party willfully disobeys a clear and definite court order."); Poston v. Poston, 331 S.C. 106, 113 , 502 S.E.2d 86, 89 (1998) ("Civil contempt must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.").

2026Nevertheless, we address this contempt question using the de novo standard of review because it is broader than the abuse of discretion 378, 381 (Ct. App. 2021) ("Civil contempt occurs when a party willfully disobeys a clear and definite court order."); Poston v. Poston, 331 S.C. 106, 113 , 502 S.E.2d 86, 89 (1998) ("Civil contempt must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.").

2021"Accordingly, we will affirm the decision of the family court in an equity case unless its decision is controlled by some error of law or the appellant satisfies the burden of showing the preponderance of the evidence actually supports contrary factual findings by th[e appellate] court." Holmes v. Holmes, 399 S.C. 499, 504 , 732 S.E.2d 213, 216 (Ct. App. 2012).

2021"Accordingly, we will affirm the decision of the family court in an equity case unless its decision is controlled by some error of law or the appellant satisfies the burden of showing the preponderance of the evidence actually supports contrary factual findings by th[e appellate] court." Holmes v. Holmes, 399 S.C. 499, 504 , 732 S.E.2d 213, 216 (Ct. App. 2012).

2021Control, 389 S.C. 1 , 9, 698 S.E.2d 612, 616 (2010) ("The proceeding before the ALJ was a de novo hearing, which included the presentation of evidence and testimony.").

2021Control, 389 S.C. 1 , 9, 698 S.E.2d 612, 616 (2010) ("The proceeding before the ALJ was a de novo hearing, which included the presentation of evidence and testimony.").

2004A trial da novo is one in which “the whole case is tried as if no trial whatsoever had been had in the first instance.” Blizzard v. Miller, 306 S.C. 373 , 375, 412 S.E.2d 406, 407 (1991).

2004A trial da novo is one in which “the whole case is tried as if no trial whatsoever had been had in the first instance.” Blizzard v. Miller, 306 S.C. 373 , 375, 412 S.E.2d 406, 407 (1991).

2021"Additionally, the de novo standard does not relieve the appellant of the burden of identifying error in the family court's findings." Id.

2020"Additionally, the de novo standard does not relieve the appellant of the burden of identifying error in the family court's findings." Id.

2024Second Injury Fund, 389 S.C. 422, 427 , 699 S.E.2d 687, 689 (2010) (holding questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law which are subject to de novo review); Proctor v. Steedley, 398 S.C. 561, 573 , 730 S.E.2d 357, 363 (Ct. App. 2012) (stating an appellate court employing the de novo standard of review is "is free to decide questions of law with no particular deference to the trial court").

2024Second Injury Fund, 389 S.C. 422, 427 , 699 S.E.2d 687, 689 (2010) (holding questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law which are subject to de novo review); Proctor v. Steedley, 398 S.C. 561, 573 , 730 S.E.2d 357, 363 (Ct. App. 2012) (stating an appellate court employing the de novo standard of review is "is free to decide questions of law with no particular deference to the trial court").

2024Under the de novo standard of review, "the appellate court has jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its view of the preponderance of the evidence." Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 384 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 651 (2011) (quoting Eason v. Eason, 384 S.C. 473, 479 , 682 S.E.2d 804, 807 (2009)). "'Preponderance of evidence' means evidence which, when fairly considered, is more convincing as to its truth than the evidence in opposition." S.C.

2024Under the de novo standard of review, "the appellate court has jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its view of the preponderance of the evidence." Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 384 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 651 (2011) (quoting Eason v. Eason, 384 S.C. 473, 479 , 682 S.E.2d 804, 807 (2009)). "'Preponderance of evidence' means evidence which, when fairly considered, is more convincing as to its truth than the evidence in opposition." S.C.

2021"In appeals from the family court, [the appellate court] reviews factual and legal issues de novo." Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011); see Singh v. Singh, 434 S.C. 223 , 228, 863 S.E.2d 330 , 332–33 (2021) (applying a de novo standard of review to the denial of Rule 60(b), SCRCP, motions raising the legal question of the family court's authority to delegate its jurisdiction to an arbitrator). "[A] reviewing court is free to decide questions of law with no particular deference to the trial court." Proctor v. Steedley, 398 S.C. 561, 573 , 730 S.E.2d 357, 363 (Ct.

2021"In appeals from the family court, [the appellate court] reviews factual and legal issues de novo." Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414 , 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011); see Singh v. Singh, 434 S.C. 223 , 228, 863 S.E.2d 330 , 332–33 (2021) (applying a de novo standard of review to the denial of Rule 60(b), SCRCP, motions raising the legal question of the family court's authority to delegate its jurisdiction to an arbitrator). "[A] reviewing court is free to decide questions of law with no particular deference to the trial court." Proctor v. Steedley, 398 S.C. 561, 573 , 730 S.E.2d 357, 363 (Ct.

2020"On appeal from an action in equity, [the appellate court] may find facts in accordance with its view of the preponderance of the evidence." Walker v. Brooks, 414 S.C. 343, 347 , 778 S.E.2d 477, 479 (2015).

2020"On appeal from an action in equity, [the appellate court] may find facts in accordance with its view of the preponderance of the evidence." Walker v. Brooks, 414 S.C. 343, 347 , 778 S.E.2d 477, 479 (2015).

2018Code Ann. § 27-23-10 (A) (2007) ("Every gift, grant, alienation, bargain, transfer, and conveyance of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, goods and chattels or any of them, or of any lease, rent, commons, or other profit or charge out of the same, by writing or otherwise, and every bond, suit, judgment, and execution which may be had or made to or for any intent or purpose to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors and others of their just and lawful actions, suits, debts, accounts, damages, penalties, and forfeitures must be deemed and taken . . . to be clearly and utterly void . . . ."); Oskin,

2018Code Ann. § 27-23-10 (A) (2007) ("Every gift, grant, alienation, bargain, transfer, and conveyance of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, goods and chattels or any of them, or of any lease, rent, commons, or other profit or charge out of the same, by writing or otherwise, and every bond, suit, judgment, and execution which may be had or made to or for any intent or purpose to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors and others of their just and lawful actions, suits, debts, accounts, damages, penalties, and forfeitures must be deemed and taken . . . to be clearly and utterly void . . . ."); Oskin,

2014Thus, the Assessor is required to prove the correctness of the valuation he is seeking; the Assessor is not required ... to prove the incorrectness of the Board’s decision.” (citation omitted)); Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 88-89 , 367 S.E.2d 171, 173 (Ct.App.1988) (holding that a taxpayer only must present evidence that an assessor’s valuation is incorrect and specifically stating: “A taxpayer contesting an assessment [only] has the burden of showing that the valuation of the taxing authority is incorrect.

2014Thus, the Assessor is required to prove the correctness of the valuation he is seeking; the Assessor is not required ... to prove the incorrectness of the Board’s decision.” (citation omitted)); Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 88-89 , 367 S.E.2d 171, 173 (Ct.App.1988) (holding that a taxpayer only must present evidence that an assessor’s valuation is incorrect and specifically stating: “A taxpayer contesting an assessment [only] has the burden of showing that the valuation of the taxing authority is incorrect.

2006In re Charlotte Observer, 882 F.2d at 853 (citing In re Washington Post, 807 F.2d 383, 381 (4th Cir. 1986)).

2006In re Charlotte Observer, 882 F.2d at 853 (citing In re Washington Post, 807 F.2d 383, 381 (4th Cir.1986)).

2011Rather, we use “a de novo standard for the review of trial court determinations of the constitutionality of punitive damages awards.” Mitchell, 385 S.C. at 583 , 686 S.E.2d at 182 ; see also Austin, 387 S.C. at 52 , 691 S.E.2d at 151 (“[A]n appellate court reviews de novo the trial judge’s application of these guideposts.”).

2011Rather, we use “a de novo standard for the review of trial court determinations of the constitutionality of punitive damages awards.” Mitchell, 385 S.C. at 583 , 686 S.E.2d at 182 ; see also Austin, 387 S.C. at 52 , 691 S.E.2d at 151 (“[A]n appellate court reviews de novo the trial judge’s application of these guideposts.”).

2019As to whether the family court erred in awarding Wife attorney's fees: Stoney, 422 S.C. at 594, 813 S.E.2d at 486 (providing that this court reviews appeals from the family court using a de novo standard of review); E.D.M. v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471 , 476-77, 415 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1992) (providing the family court should consider four factors in deciding to award attorney's fees and costs: "(1) the party's ability to pay his/her own attorney's fee; (2) beneficial results obtained by the attorney; (3) the parties' respective financial conditions; [and] (4) effect of the attorney's fee on each party

2019As to whether the family court erred in awarding Wife attorney's fees: Stoney, 422 S.C. at 594, 813 S.E.2d at 486 (providing that this court reviews appeals from the family court using a de novo standard of review); E.D.M. v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471 , 476-77, 415 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1992) (providing the family court should consider four factors in deciding to award attorney's fees and costs: "(1) the party's ability to pay his/her own attorney's fee; (2) beneficial results obtained by the attorney; (3) the parties' respective financial conditions; [and] (4) effect of the attorney's fee on each party

2000Co. v. Smith, 327 S.C. 528, 534 , 489 S.E.2d 674, 677 (Ct.App.1997) (explaining that ALJ is not restricted to merely reviewing decision below when hearing a contested case, which is in the nature of a de novo hearing; thus indicating the converse proposition that an ALJ is restricted to reviewing the decision below when acting in an appellate capacity).

2000Co. v. Smith, 327 S.C. 528, 534 , 489 S.E.2d 674, 677 (Ct.App.1997) (explaining that ALJ is not restricted to merely reviewing decision below when hearing a contested case, which is in the nature of a de novo hearing; thus indicating the converse proposition that an ALJ is restricted to reviewing the decision below when acting in an appellate capacity).

2026No. 11 at 57) (recognizing the appellate courts review contempt orders arising out of the family court using a de novo standard of review); Stoney, 422 S.C. at 595, 813 S.E.2d at 487 ("[D]e novo review allows an appellate court to make its own findings of fact; however, this standard does not abrogate two long-standing principles still recognized by our courts during the de novo review process: (1) a trial [court] is in a superior position to assess witness credibility, and (2) an appellant has the burden of showing the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the find

2026No. 11 at 57) (recognizing the appellate courts review contempt orders arising out of the family court using a de novo standard of review); Stoney, 422 S.C. at 595, 813 S.E.2d at 487 ("[D]e novo review allows an appellate court to make its own findings of fact; however, this standard does not abrogate two long-standing principles still recognized by our courts during the de novo review process: (1) a trial [court] is in a superior position to assess witness credibility, and (2) an appellant has the burden of showing the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the find

2025See Klein, 427 S.C. at 79 , 828 S.E.2d at 776 ("On appeal from the family court, the appellate court reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Stoney, 422 S.C. at 595, 813 S.E.2d at 487 (explaining the de novo standard of review allows this court to make its own findings of fact but does not negate the superior position of the family court to assess witness credibility or relieve the appellant of the burden of showing that the preponderance of the evidence is against the family court's findings).

2025See Klein, 427 S.C. at 79 , 828 S.E.2d at 776 ("On appeal from the family court, the appellate court reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Stoney, 422 S.C. at 595, 813 S.E.2d at 487 (explaining the de novo standard of review allows this court to make its own findings of fact but does not negate the superior position of the family court to assess witness credibility or relieve the appellant of the burden of showing that the preponderance of the evidence is against the family court's findings).

2025See Altman, 372 S.C. at 393 , 642 S.E.2d at 622 (stating that because the family court can assess witness demeanor and credibility, "custody determinations largely rest in the sound discretion of the family court judge"); Posner, 383 S.C. at 31 , 677 S.E.2d at 619 (stating the de novo standard of review applied to appeals from the family court allows the appellate court to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence); Daily, 432 S.C. at 619, 854 S.E.2d at 862 (alteration in original) ("Determination of the child's best interest requires consideration of the

2025See Altman, 372 S.C. at 393 , 642 S.E.2d at 622 (stating that because the family court can assess witness demeanor and credibility, "custody determinations largely rest in the sound discretion of the family court judge"); Posner, 383 S.C. at 31 , 677 S.E.2d at 619 (stating the de novo standard of review applied to appeals from the family court allows the appellate court to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence); Daily, 432 S.C. at 619, 854 S.E.2d at 862 (alteration in original) ("Determination of the child's best interest requires consideration of the

2025See Brock v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 415 S.C. 625, 628 , 785 S.E.2d 198, 200 (2016) ("The interpretation of a statute is a question of law" which the appellate court reviews "without any deference to the court below." (cleaned up)).

2025See Brock v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 415 S.C. 625, 628 , 785 S.E.2d 198, 200 (2016) ("The interpretation of a statute is a question of law" which the appellate court reviews "without any deference to the court below." (cleaned up)).

2025See Altman, 372 S.C. at 393 , 642 S.E.2d at 622 (stating that because the family court can assess witness demeanor and credibility, "custody determinations largely rest in the sound discretion of the family court judge"); Posner, 383 S.C. at 31 , 677 S.E.2d at 619 (stating the de novo standard of review applied to appeals from the family court allows the appellate court to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence); Daily, 432 S.C. at 619, 854 S.E.2d at 862 (alteration in original) ("Determination of the child's best interest requires consideration of the

2025See Altman, 372 S.C. at 393 , 642 S.E.2d at 622 (stating that because the family court can assess witness demeanor and credibility, "custody determinations largely rest in the sound discretion of the family court judge"); Posner, 383 S.C. at 31 , 677 S.E.2d at 619 (stating the de novo standard of review applied to appeals from the family court allows the appellate court to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence); Daily, 432 S.C. at 619, 854 S.E.2d at 862 (alteration in original) ("Determination of the child's best interest requires consideration of the

2024Second Injury Fund, 389 S.C. 422, 427 , 699 S.E.2d 687, 689 (2010) (holding questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law which are subject to de novo review); Proctor v. Steedley, 398 S.C. 561, 573 , 730 S.E.2d 357, 363 (Ct. App. 2012) (stating an appellate court employing the de novo standard of review is "is free to decide questions of law with no particular deference to the trial court").

2024Second Injury Fund, 389 S.C. 422, 427 , 699 S.E.2d 687, 689 (2010) (holding questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law which are subject to de novo review); Proctor v. Steedley, 398 S.C. 561, 573 , 730 S.E.2d 357, 363 (Ct. App. 2012) (stating an appellate court employing the de novo standard of review is "is free to decide questions of law with no particular deference to the trial court").