A Charleston County woman will be able to immediately appeal a trial judge’s ruling from the first phase of a bifurcated trial finding that the woman and her romantic partner had been united in a common law marriage since the late 1980s, the South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled.
Marion Stone and Susan Thompson moved in together after Hurricane Hugo hit Charleston in 1989. They had a second child together and lived together for more than 20 years before the relationship ended when Thompson discovered that Stone was having an affair. Stone contended that he was entitled to a declaratory judgment that he and Thompson were common-law married, a divorce from that marriage, and an equitable distribution of alleged marital property.
In the first phase of a bifurcated trial, Charleston County Family Court Judge Jocelyn B. Cate found that the couple had held themselves out as being married since 1989, and so had been legally married since that time. Thompson appealed, but Stone argued that the order was not immediately appealable because the remaining issues in the dispute were still unresolved. The state’s Court of Appeals agreed and dismissed the appeal.
But in an April 3 opinion, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed and held that the ruling was immediately appealable. Justice Kaye Hearn, writing for the court, said that the ruling that the couple was common-law married went to the merits of the case.
“Stone’s actions for divorce and equitable distribution require a determination the parties are married,” Hearn wrote. “This determination is substantial, not only as a part of the causes of action, but also in terms of the larger effects of marriage across other areas of law. Thompson’s primary—and, to this point, exclusive—defense to the family court causes of action was that the parties were not married. Accordingly, the court weighed the evidence and finally determined a substantial matter forming part of Stone’s causes of action, as well as Thompson’s defense.”
Hearn wrote that the court’s holding as to appealability would apply only where a claim or defense has been finally determined following a bifurcated hearing. Chief Justice Donald Beatty wrote a concurring opinion to express his displeasure with the bifurcated nature of the trial.
“In my view, bifurcation in a domestic relations case should be rare if ever at all,” Beatty wrote. “The emotional and contentious nature of most domestic relations cases all but guarantees an expensive, long, and tortuous path to resolution. Bifurcation only adds to the expense and delayed resolution. Moreover, bifurcation thwarts this Court’s long-held policy to avoid piecemeal appeals. This case is a prime example of this problem.”
In the interest of bringing the “lengthy litigation” on whether a common law marriage existed to a close, the court declined to remand the case to the Court of Appeals. Instead, it retained jurisdiction and will proceed to set the remaining issues for oral argument.
Donald B. Clark of Charleston represented Thompson. Alexander Blair Cash and Daniel Francis Blanchard III of Rosen Rosen & Hagood in Charleston represented Stone.
The six-page decision is Stone v. Thompson (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-020-19). The full text of the opinion is available online at sclawyersweekly.com.
Follow David Donovan on Twitter @SCLWDonovan