Court Opinion

ID: 9781327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:31:14.890921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:34.654956
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice TOAL.
I concur with the majority’s excellently researched opinion. I write separately to note my disagreement with the dissent’s contention that the standard of de novo appellate review of facts in an equity case changes when this Court reviews a case pursuant to a grant of a writ of certiorari, rather than on appeal. The dissent would hold that, when we review equita*395ble actions pursuant to a writ of certiorari, we may only correct errors of law or findings of fact that are wholly unsupported by the evidence.12
Since this Court’s decision in Finley v. Cartwright, 55 S.C. 198, 33 S.E. 359 (1899), our scope of review in equitable actions, including domestic relations actions, has been well-settled and consistently applied. Rutherford v. Rutherford, 307 S.C. 199, 203, 414 S.E.2d 157, 160 (1992) (“This interpretation [of the Court’s scope of review in equitable actions] has been consistently applied to all equity cases, including domestic actions, since Finley.”); Finley, 55 S.C. 198, 33 S.E. at 360-61 (in equitable matters, when “reviewing questions of fact under the constitution of 1895, it may now be regarded as settled that this court may reverse a finding of fact by the circuit court when the appellant satisfies this court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of the circuit court.”); see also, e.g., Fisher v. Tucker, 388 S.C. 388, 391, 697 S.E.2d 548, 550 (2010) (“[T]he appellate court has jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its view of the preponderance of the evidence.”); Patel v. Patel, 359 S.C. 515, 522-23, 599 S.E.2d 114, 118 (2004) (“Where a family court order is appealed, we have jurisdiction to find facts based on our own view of the preponderance of the evidence.”); Clinkscales v. Clinkscales, 275 S.C. 308, 310, 270 S.E.2d 715, 716 (1980) (“This Court has jurisdiction, on an appeal from an order of the Family Court, to find facts in accordance with its *396own view of the preponderance or greater weight of the evidence, and may reverse factual finding by lower court when appellant satisfies the Court that the finding is against the preponderance of the evidence.”); Simonds v. Simonds, 232 S.C. 185, 205, 101 S.E.2d 494, 504 (1957) (“This Court has the authority in appeals in equity to find the facts in accord with our own view of the preponderance or greater weight of the evidence, and we may reverse a finding of fact by the Circuit Court when an appellant satisfies this Court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of the Circuit Court.”); Wise v. Wise, 60 S.C. 426, 38 S.E. 794, 802-03 (1901) (McIver, C.J., dissenting and quoting Finley, 55 S.C. 198, 33 S.E. 359) (“Whatever differences of opinion may once have existed as to the rule which should govern where an appellant, as in this case, asks this court to reverse the findings of fact by the circuit judge, in an equity case, it must now, since the decision in Finley v. Cartioright, be regarded as settled ‘that this court may reverse a finding of fact by the circuit court when the appellant satisfies this court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of the circuit court.’ ” (internal citations omitted)); Sylvester-Bleckley Co. v. Goodwin, 51 S.C. 362, 29 S.E. 3, 4 (1898) (“In a case in equity this court will reverse a finding of fact by the circuit court when the appellant satisfies this court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of the circuit court.”).
Likewise, in numerous equitable matters before this Court pursuant to a grant of a writ of certiorari, the Court has applied a de novo standard of review. See, e.g., Ables v. Gladden, 378 S.C. 558, 564, 664 S.E.2d 442, 445 (2008)(on writ of certiorari in domestic relations cases, this Court may find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence); Goldman v. RBC, Inc., 369 S.C. 462, 465, 632 S.E.2d 850, 851 (2006) (because an action to quiet title is equitable in nature, the Court could find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence); Wooten v. Wooten, 364 S.C. 532, 540, 615 S.E.2d 98, 102 (2005) (stating on writ of certiorari in a domestic relations case, “an appellate court has the authority to find the facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence”); Williams v. Wilson, 349 S.C. 336, 339-40, 563 S.E.2d 320, 322 (2002) (because the main purpose of the underlying *397action for declaratory relief was to enjoin a party from taking an action in the future, the action for declaratory judgment was said to be equitable in nature, and therefore, the Court could take its “own view of the preponderance of the evidence”); Taylor v. Lindsey, 332 S.C. 1, 3 n. 2, 498 S.E.2d 862, 863 n. 2 (1998) (on writ of certiorari, an action to enforce a restrictive covenant by injunction was equitable, so the Court was entitled to “find facts in accordance with its own view of the evidence.”); Rutherford, 307 S.C. at 204, 414 S.E.2d at 160 (“In appeals from all equity actions including those from the Family Court, the appellate court has authority to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence.”).
While I appreciate the dissent’s effort to distinguish the various means by which this Court may exercise appellate review, our cases do not require the Court to apply a particular standard of review in equity actions because we choose to grant a writ of certiorari. In the very case cited by the dissent in support of this proposition, City of Columbia v. S.C. Public Service Commission, 242 S.C. 528, 131 S.E.2d 705 (1963), the Court explained the attributes of the common law writ of certiorari:
At common law the writ of certiorari is used for two purposes: (1) As an appellate proceeding for the re-examination of some action of an inferior tribunal. (2) As an auxiliary process to enable the Court to obtain further information with respect to some matter already before it for adjudication.
While certiorari has been said to be original in nature, it has also been said to be appellate. It may be said, indeed, to have characteristics of both. For example, to the extent that it involves the review of the proceedings of an inferior court, certiorari is an appellate proceeding, but to the extent that the subject matter of the proceeding brought before the appellate court will not be reinvestigated, tried, or determined on the merits as on appeal or writ of error, it is an original proceeding.
242 S.C. at 534, 131 S.E.2d at 708 (citations omitted). When reviewing the decision of an inferior tribunal “on certiorari” or “on appeal,” the writ is said to be appellate in nature. Id. (“An appeal is a review by a superior court of some proceeding *398held in an inferior tribunal. The method of review may be called appeal or certiorari and be classified as an appellate proceeding....”); Rowe v. City of W. Columbia, 334 S.C. 400, 404, 513 S.E.2d 379, 381 (Ct.App.1999) (“[W]hen a court is reviewing some proceeding held in a lower tribunal, the proceeding is an appellate proceeding, regardless of the title given the proceedings by the reviewing court.”). In my view, our standard of review in a particular case depends on the nature of the underlying action and has little to do with the semantics concerning the method by which the case reaches the Court.
As noted above, in an appeal from the family court before this Court pursuant to a grant of a writ of certiorari, where the action is equitable in nature, this Court may find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. To hold otherwise would convert all equitable matters before this Court on a writ of certiorari into matters of law, which result is not only contrary to longstanding precedent, but is also in derogation of our state constitution.13 See S.C. Const, art. V, § 5 (providing that in equity appeals, the Court “shall review the findings of fact as well as the law, except in cases where the facts are settled by a jury and the verdict not set aside”); RV Resort & Yacht Club Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. BillyBob’s Marina, Inc., 386 S.C. 313, 321, 688 S.E.2d 555, 559 (2010) (distinguishing our scope of review in actions at law, in which we will not disturb the trial court’s factual findings unless unsupported by the evidence, and in actions in equity, in which we may find facts in accordance with our own view by a preponderance of the evidence); Rutherford, 307 S.C. at 204, 414 S.E.2d at 160 (holding unconstitutional the passage of a statute purporting to limit the constitutionally mandated standard of review in appeals from family court to a determination of whether there was substantial evidence to support the findings of the family court); Forester v. Forester, 226 S.C. 311, 315, 85 S.E.2d 187, 188-89 (1954) (rejecting the argument that “the power and jurisdiction of this court over [an] equity case are practically the same *399as if we were reviewing a case at law and that the judgment of the lower court is similar in that aspect to the verdict of a jury” and finding “ ‘[the Court] ha[s] jurisdiction in appeals in equity to find the facts in accord with our view of the preponderance or greater weight of the evidence, in the absence of verdict by jury’ ” (quoting Gilbert v. McLeod Infirmary, 219 S.C. 174, 64 S.E.2d 524, 528 (1951)). Based on the foregoing, I am unable to find any merit in the dissent’s rationale.
KITTREDGE, J., concurs.

. The dissent provides support for this position by citing two non-equitable cases: Hollman v. Woolfson, 384 S.C. 571, 577, 683 S.E.2d 495, 498 (2009) (where the Court issued a writ of certiorari to the trial court to review a discovery order based on exceptional circumstances and stated "[o]n certiorari, this Court will review only errors of law and will not review factual findings unless wholly unsupported by the evidence”) and Turner v. State, 384 S.C. 451, 453, 682 S.E.2d 792, 793 (2009) (where the Court granted a writ of certiorari to the PCR court to review that court's denial of relief to petitioner and stated "on certiorari, the PCR court's ruling should be upheld if it is supported by any evidence of probative value in the record,” and the Court will reverse when "[the PCR court] is controlled by an error of law” (internal citations omitted)). In my view, despite the Court’s inclusion of the phrase “on certiorari,” these opinions do nothing to advance the dissent's position that because this Court issues a writ of certiorari in an equity case, it follows that the Court must limit its scope of review to the correction of errors of law and the correction of factual errors only if the facts are unsupported by the evidence.

. I also note the dissent's reasoning would lead to the absurd result wherein the court of appeals had the capability to exercise greater discretion than this Court simply because the case reached that court "on appeal” rather than "on certiorari.”