Court Opinion

ID: 9766024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:29:01.757357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:18.509536
License: Public Domain

LOCKEMY, J.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, limited to the facts of this case, the Division put upon itself a commitment to assist Polite in properly seeking modification. Polite first encountered the Division when it served him with Notice of Financial Responsibility to establish support for his three children. Polite appeared without representation at a conference with the Division and signed an administrative process order requiring him to pay support. Polite expressed his concern that his oldest child would reach the age of eighteen four months later. Polite testified the Division promised to contact him to reevaluate his support obligation after his oldest child turned eighteen. As Judge Woods noted, if this matter was handled in court, the support order would have likely provided for an automatic reduction in Polite’s support obligation upon the oldest child’s eighteenth birthday.
Despite its assurance, the Division failed to contact Polite after his oldest child reached the age of eighteen and Polite telephoned the Division on several occasions seeking assistance. Judge Woods found that during Polite’s last call in June or July 2006, Polite asked the Division what steps to take in order to have his support obligation modified and the Division informed him it would contact him at a later date. Based upon the Division’s control of the situation since the beginning, and its assurances it would handle the modification, Polite reasonably relied on the Division to assist him in seeking modification.
Polite is pro se and has been since this action began. Polite has always complied with the Division’s instructions. Unlike the mother in Blackwell v. Fulgum, 375 S.C. 337, 652 S.E.2d 427 (Ct.App.2007), he did not unilaterally reduce his support payments and continued to pay the full amount of his support obligation. Judge Woods correctly observed if Polite unilaterally reduced his support obligation like the mother in Blackwell, he may have successfully reduced his support obligation earlier because the family court would have likely ordered him to appear on a rule to show cause. In fact, Polite was not able *285to have his support obligation reduced until two years after his oldest child turned eighteen. Furthermore, Judge Woods also noted because Polite continued to pay the full amount of his support obligation his other two children were assured of receiving the appropriate amount of support. I believe Polite has suffered a serious injustice because he reasonably relied on the Division’s assurances.
I do not believe section 63-17-310 of the South Carolina Code (2010) precluded the family court from retroactively reducing Polite’s support obligation. In Harris v. Harris, 307 S.C. 351, 353, 415 S.E.2d 391, 393 (1992), the supreme court held section 63-17-310 does not bar a retroactive child support modification in special circumstances where refraining from modification would result in a serious injustice. Like in Harris, refraining from modification here results in a serious injustice. The Division took it upon itself to process Polite’s request and assured him it would handle the matter. As an agency of the State it assumed responsibility and Polite relied upon the Division taking the action it assured him it would. Although pro se litigants are not entitled to special treatment, the Division was aware of Polite’s reliance and failed to inform him of the proper way to seek modification.
I agree with the majority that a phone call is not sufficient to meet the standard for notifying the Division of a request to seek modification in section 63-17-830(A) of the South Carolina Code (2010). However, where an agency of the State, tasked with administering a statute, assures a person seeking access to justice that it will assist in properly complying with that statute, it is a serious injustice to allow that agency to use the statute as a shield to protect itself against its failure to follow through on its promise.
Judge Woods held two thorough hearings on this matter, determined the credibility of the witnesses, weighed all the evidence, and determined Polite “should not be punished for following the procedures of the Division and the delay that [that] caused.” Although Judge Woods acknowledged under normal circumstances it may be improper to give Polite credit, he recognized the delay of “bureaucracy at work” created special circumstances in Polite’s case and acted accordingly. *286For these reasons, I would affirm the family court’s decision to credit Polite the amount he over paid from July 1, 2006.