SCLAWYERSWEEKLY.COM Part of the
VOLUME 19 NUMBER 20 ■
network
SEPTEMBER 27, 2021 ■ $8.50
Police bound by promise of confidentiality to suspect
CUSTODY USTODY MATTERS MATTERS CAN CAN’TT BE BE SUBJECT SUBJECT TO TO BINDING BINDING ARBITRATION ARBITRATION
■ BY HEATH HAMACHER hhamacher@sclawyersweekly.com
■ BY HEATH HAMACHER hhamacher@sclawyersweekly.com
The South Carolina Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial for a man who was convicted of killing a child when he set a mobile home on fire, finding that his recorded statements to police were coerced by officers who assured him that anything he told them was confidential. In a case of first impression, the appeals court unanimously held that considering the totality of the circumstances, a defendant’s voluntary statements are inadmissible if police have induced the statements by making false promises to the suspect. “Assuredly, interrogating officers can make false representations concerning the crime or the investigation during questioning without always rendering an ensuing confession coerced,” Judge Thomas Huff wrote for the court. “But false promises stand on a different footing.”
For years, the question of whether child custody and visitation issues can be submitted to binding arbitration with no oversight by the family court and no right of review by an appellate tribunal has been bouncing around in South Carolina’s courts. In a Sept. 8 opinion, a unanimous state Supreme Court gave a clear answer in this case of first impression. “We believe the answer is clearly and unequivocally no,” Justice Kaye Hearn wrote for the court. “Our Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (ADR) contemplate both mediation and arbitration of family court matters, but implicitly limit binding arbitration to issues of property and alimony.” The ruling comes after the state’s Court of Appeals denied five motions filed by a mother seeking to vacate arbitration awards giving custody of her two children to her former husband.
Promises, promises
next 10 months, four family court judges issued orders in the case, with two amending agreements to arbitrate, one issuing a consent order to arbitrate, and one dismissing the complaint because the parties agreed to arbitrate. The arbitrator, finding a substantial material change in circumstances, awarded temporary custody, and ultimately permanent custody, to the father.
A 12-year-old boy died in an attempted insurance scam gone horribly wrong. In the early hours of March 29, 2014, Randy Collins and his nephew James Miller set fire to a trailer home owned by Marissa Cohen. They were tragically unaware that one of Cohen’s children, Dave Coombs, had unexpectedly returned to the home, which his family had recently vacated. After an anonymous tip, Andrews police officer Oliver Nesmith—a man with whom Collins was familiar and possibly related to—obtained a warrant and seized Collins’ cell phones.
S e e Cu s t o d y P a g e 5 ►
S e e Co n f i d e n t i a l i t y P a g e 3 ►
Children’s interests are paramount
After separating in 2012, Simran Singh and Gunjit Singh entered into a settlement regarding the custody and visitation of their children. Simran, the mother, received primary custody, and the couple agreed to submit future disputes to an agreed-upon arbitrator whose decision would be “binding and non-appealable.” The Charleston County Family Court approved the agreement and granted the couple a divorce. Several months later, Gunjit sought to modify the agreement after Simran left South Carolina to give motivational speeches across the country. Over the
$600K verdict against Ports Authority upheld ■ BY HEATH HAMACHER hhamacher@sclawyersweekly.com The South Carolina Court of Appeals has unanimously affirmed a $600,000 award to a trucker injured by a South Carolina Ports Authority crane operator, finding no evidence that the trucker breached a duty of care in an incident that left him with neck and back injuries. Curtis Mills was offloading a cargo container on the Port Authority’s Wando Terminal in 2012, when he contends that the crane operator lifted and
shook the container while it was still attached to the truck, separating them and dropping the truck several feet to the ground. Mills said that the crane operator left the scene after ignoring his attempts to flag him down. The Ports Authority argued that a Charleston County jury’s verdict in Mills’ favor in 2018 shouldn’t stand because the trial court refused to charge comparative negligence and denied its motion for either a new trial absolute or a new trial nisi remittitur, and the award—reduced to the $300,000 statutory cap for damages against a government entity under
the state’s Tort Claims Act—was excessive. But in a Sept. 15 opinion, Chief Judge James Lockemy wrote that the Ports Authority had failed to present evidence supporting an inference of Mills’ negligence. “The trial court is required to charge only principles of law that apply to the issues raised in the pleadings and developed by the evidence in support of those issues,” Lockemy wrote, citing the state Supreme Court’s 2000 ruling in Clark v. Cantrell. S e e Ve r d i c t P a g e 5 ►
INSIDE VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS
LAW
WORKPLACE
Utility to pay $3.25M for strip of land in Charleston
Lawyers help employers navigate vaccine mandates in S.C.
The ‘morning huddle’: short and sweet — and powerful
Page 3
Page 3
Page 4