SCLAWYERSWEEKLY.COM VOLUME 20 NUMBER 12
Part of the
JUNE 6, 2022 $8.50
network
No explicit consent, no jurisdiction Objections key Appeals ruling
to
Court
of
BY HEATH HAMACHER hhamacher@sclawyersweekly.com
Judge John E. Waites Photo provided by Nelson Mullins
Bankruptcy judge receives state’s highest civilian honor BY JASON THOMAS John E. Waites, a United States bankruptcy judge for the district of South Carolina, has been given the Order of the Palmetto, which is the highest award given to civilians in South Carolina. Associate Justice John C. Few of the South Carolina Supreme Court recently presented the award to Waites on behalf of South Carolina Gov. Harry McMaster, according to a news release from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Waites is a Columbia native and graduate of Davidson College and the University of South Carolina
School of Law. Among the many reasons cited for making this award to Judge Waites is his almost 28 years’ service as a bankruptcy judge and five years as the U.S. Trustee for Region 4; his expansion of the court’s pro bono program; and his founding of the South Carolina Credit Abuse Resistance Education (CARE) Program, which brings much needed financial education into South Carolina high schools and colleges, the release stated. He has served two terms on the South Carolina Supreme Court Access to Justice Commission, and he
Where a military retiree objected to the state’s family court’s jurisdiction over his retirement benefits at his earliest opportunity and at every stage of the divorce proceeding, he did not explicitly consent to have his military benefits decided in South Carolina, the state’s Court of Appeals has unanimously ruled in a case of first impression. The May 25 ruling reverses the family court’s finding that the plaintiff consented to the court’s jurisdiction to divide his military retirement benefits. The question before the court was whether consent for purposes of section 1408(c)(4) of the U.S. Code (the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act) must be specifically to jurisdiction over military retirement benefits rather than to the jurisdiction of the court in general. The court found that it must. “If the statute means consent to jurisdiction in general, then Husband did so by conceding the family court had jurisdiction over him for the matters that did not relate to his military retirement benefits,” Judge Aphrodite Konduras wrote for the appeals court. “However, Husband was clear at all times that he objected to jurisdiction over his military benefits.” Judges Stephanie McDonald and John Geathers concurred in the decision.
Two judges, one ruling
See Bankruptcy Page 6 ►
In 2015, Rubiela Williams filed
for divorce in South Carolina from Ennis Williams, her husband of 25 years. Ennis lived in the family home in Charlotte, while Rubiela had moved to Columbia, South Carolina. Among other things, Rubiela sought custody of the couple’s minor child, child support, and an order requiring Ennis to set aside his GI Bill benefits for the children equally. In April 2016, Ennis filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that under section 1408(c)(4), the family court lacks jurisdiction to divide his military benefits because he lived in North Carolina and had never been a resident or domiciled in South Carolina. Ennis did “not absolutely nor implicitly consent to the jurisdiction of the [family] court,” he stated. Section 1408(c)(4) prohibits state courts from exercising authority to determine the status of a service member’s pension unless personal jurisdiction over the member is acquired through one of three methods. Either the service member must reside (other than military assignment) in the territorial jurisdiction of the court, have domicile in the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or consent to the jurisdiction of the court. In his answer and counterclaim, filed just days later, Ennis again asserted that the family court, for the same reasons, did not have jurisdiction over his retirement benefits. The following month, family court Judge Michelle Hurley found that Ennis consented to the court’s jurisdiction through the affirmative actions of filing S e e M i l i t a r y Pe n s i o n P a g e 6 ►
12 sentenced in multi-million construction tax fraud case BY MELINDA WALDROP mwaldrop@scbiznews.com Twelve defendants from seven constructionrelated companies have been sentenced for employment tax fraud felonies and crimes related to hiring unauthorized workers in a scheme that saw at least $15 million in bogus checks cashed. The convictions are the first to come from a multi-year undercover investigation, led by the IRS and Homeland Security Investigations, in the Myrtle Beach area and along the South Carolina coast, according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for District of South
Carolina. The operation targeted the use of unlicensed check cashers to facilitate under-the-table cash payments to employees, many of whom were unauthorized aliens. The check cashers would also provide certificates of insurance falsely stating that the employees were covered under workers’ compensation insurance. These off-the-book payments defrauded the United States out of applicable employment taxes on the employees, according to the U.S Attorney’s office. At least $15 million in checks were cashed, resulting in millions of dollars of total losses to the government.
“These defendants stole money from South Carolina taxpayers, they stole opportunities from those in the construction industry who did the right thing, and they stole safety from the workers who labored on jobsites without insurance,” U.S. Attorney Corey F. Ellis said in the release. “This successful prosecution was only possible because of the tireless and dedicated investigative efforts of IRS and HSI, as well as the work of our local partners. The defendants in this case, none of whom had criminal records before this investigation, are all now convicted felons. S e e Fr a u d c a s e P a g e 6 ►
INSIDE VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS
VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS
COMMENTARY
Impaired driver in head-on crash leads to $17M settlement.
Rear-end crash victim settles for $1M.
SC rules emotional distress damages not available under Title VI, Title IX.
Page 3
Page 3
Page 4