When Income Disputes Complicate Child Support

• View Larger Image

When Income Disputes Complicate Child Support

When Income Disputes Complicate Child Support: Key Lessons from Brantley v. Brantley
South Carolina Court of Appeals | August 30, 2023

The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently issued an important decision in Brantley v. Brantley, 441 S.C. 284 (2023), addressing critical issues that frequently arise in family law cases: income determination for self-employed parents, contempt findings, and attorney’s fees awards. This case provides valuable guidance for parents navigating child support disputes and demonstrates the serious consequences of failing to cooperate with financial disclosure requirements.

Case Background
Dennis and Ingrid Brantley divorced in 2016 after 17 years of marriage. They had three children together and initially agreed to specific income figures and child support arrangements in their divorce decree. However, just two years later, Mother filed an action seeking custody changes and child support recalculation, alleging Father’s income was significantly higher than previously disclosed.

What followed was a contentious three-year battle that culminated in important appellate guidance on several key family law issues.

The Central Issue: Determining Income for Self-Employed Parents
The most significant issue in this case was Father’s actual income. As a self-employed businessman with income from three separate businesses, Father’s financial situation was complex. However, complexity quickly turned to controversy when the family court found Father was not a credible witness.

Red Flags That Undermined Credibility
The court identified numerous problems with Father’s financial disclosures:

Miscategorization of rent payments, income, and business versus personal expenditures
Multiple errors and omissions across several years of tax returns
Admitted “sloppy bookkeeping”
Failure to list property on financial declarations
Inaccurate information on claimed child expenses
Accounting mistakes on tax returns

The Court’s Response
When a parent’s financial declarations are unreliable, the family court must look to other evidence to determine income. In this case, Mother hired forensic accountant Christopher Leventis, who reviewed Father’s bank statements, credit card statements, and tax returns to determine his actual income.

Father challenged Leventis’s qualifications and conclusions, but the Court of Appeals upheld the family court’s reliance on the expert testimony, finding:

“Father’s arguments fail due to his inability to supply the court with any meaningful representation of his income.”

The court emphasized a crucial principle: A party cannot complain about errors that his own conduct created. Father’s refusal to provide accurate financial information precluded him from challenging the income determination on appeal.

Practical Takeaway: The Importance of Financial Transparency
This case illustrates why complete and accurate financial disclosure is essential in family court:

1. Credibility matters: Once a court finds a party lacks credibility regarding finances, all of that party’s testimony becomes suspect.
2. The court will find your income: If you don’t provide accurate information, the court will rely on expert analysis, bank records, and circumstantial evidence—which may result in a higher income finding than if you had been forthcoming.
3. You’ll pay for the investigation: Father was ultimately ordered to pay $75,000 in attorney’s fees, in part because his lack of cooperation required Mother to hire a forensic accountant.
4. Self-inflicted wounds: Courts will not relieve parties from consequences of their own non-cooperation.

Contempt Findings: Notice Requirements Matter
The court also addressed whether Father was in contempt for:

Failing to provide 90 days’ notice of his move and his new permanent address
Enrolling his oldest son in a new high school

The Move: Contempt Affirmed
Father signed a one-year lease on March 13, 2018, but only vaguely informed Mother on March 7 that he intended to move “on or after May 15.” The court found this violated the clear requirement to provide 90 days’ notice of intent to move and to keep Mother advised of his permanent address.

The court stated: “It is apparent that Father had the premeditated intention of moving” and that “failure to obey [a court order] is not excused just because a party dons blinders and convinces himself a court order does not mean what it plainly says.”

School Enrollment: Contempt Reversed
However, the court reversed the contempt finding for enrolling the child in summer school at a new high school. The temporary order required the children to “finish the school year” in their current district and noted the case would be “fast-tracked” to determine future enrollment.

The Court of Appeals found this language wasn’t clear enough to prohibit summer school enrollment, emphasizing that contempt requires willful disobeyance of a “clear and certain” order, not an implied one.

Practice tip: When drafting temporary orders involving school enrollment, be explicit about whether the restriction applies only to the current school year or extends to summer programs and the following year.

Attorney’s Fees: When Uncooperative Conduct Justifies Large Awards
Father was ordered to pay $75,000 in attorney’s fees—representing approximately 37% of his annual income. While this might seem excessive, the Court of Appeals upheld the award based on several factors:

The Legal Standard
Courts consider four threshold factors when determining whether to award fees:

Each party’s ability to pay
Beneficial results obtained
The parties’ respective financial conditions
Effect on each party’s standard of living

If fees are warranted, courts then consider the Glasscock factors regarding amount:

Nature, extent, and difficulty of the case
Time devoted to the case
Professional standing of counsel
Contingency of compensation
Beneficial results obtained
Customary fees for similar services

Why This Large Award Was Upheld
The court emphasized that Father’s uncooperative conduct was the “lynchpin” of the award:

His evasive testimony required extensive questioning to extract simple information
His inaccurate financial disclosures complicated the case
His failure to update discovery responses increased litigation costs
His conduct necessitated hiring a forensic accountant

The court cited its previous decision in Spreeuw v. Barker, holding: “If the case presents an added dimension of an uncooperative spouse who hampers a final resolution of the issues in dispute, we will not reward an adversary spouse for such conduct.”
Notably, while attorney’s fees awards representing 16% or even 90% of annual income have been found excessive in other cases, the uncooperative conduct in Brantley justified the 37% award.

Income Modification: A Technical Victory
The Court of Appeals did modify one aspect of the family court’s ruling. The expert testified Father’s 2017 income was $202,234.46, but the family court found it to be $203,067. The appellate court corrected this discrepancy, reducing the income finding by approximately $833.

While this may seem minor, it demonstrates the Court of Appeals’ commitment to ensuring findings align precisely with the evidence presented.

Lessons for Family Law Practitioners and Clients
For Clients:

Be transparent about your finances: Attempting to hide income or providing inaccurate information will backfire. Courts have tools to discover the truth, and your credibility will be destroyed.
Organize your records: If you’re self-employed, maintain clear separation between personal and business expenses. “Sloppy bookkeeping” is not a defense.
Follow court orders precisely: Vague compliance isn’t enough. If ordered to provide notice of a move, do so clearly and timely.
Cooperation saves money: Father’s lack of cooperation cost him dearly in attorney’s fees. Being forthright from the start is almost always less expensive.

For Practitioners:

Draft clear orders: The contempt reversal regarding school enrollment shows the importance of precise language. Don’t leave room for interpretation when restrictions are intended.
Document discovery failures: When the opposing party fails to provide accurate financial information, carefully document each instance. This creates the record necessary to support both income findings and attorney’s fees awards.
Consider forensic accountants early: When dealing with a self-employed party with complex finances, a forensic accountant can be essential—and their costs may be recoverable.
Build the record for fees: The family court’s detailed analysis of the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors was key to the fee award being upheld. Document not just your time, but how opposing party’s conduct increased the work required.

Conclusion
Brantley v. Brantley reinforces fundamental principles in South Carolina family law: courts expect honesty and cooperation in financial matters, will not reward obstructive conduct, and have broad discretion to award attorney’s fees when a party’s behavior unnecessarily complicates litigation.

For self-employed parents facing child support disputes, this case sends a clear message: accurate financial disclosure is not optional, and attempting to obscure your true income will ultimately cost you far more than being forthright from the start.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are facing child support issues, income disputes, or contempt allegations, contact an experienced family law attorney to discuss your specific situation.
Klok Law Firm LLC | Family Law Practice | Charleston, South Carolina

By Suzanne Klok|2025-11-12T17:09:55+00:00September 1st, 2023|Family Law|Comments Off on When Income Disputes Complicate Child Support

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the Author: Suzanne Klok

Related Posts

What to Wear to South Carolina Family Court Hearings

South Carolina Rule 21 Updates 2025: Temporary Hearings

Passport Provisions in SC Custody Orders: Complete Guide for Parents

Answering Discovery in SC Family Court: What You Must Know

Supreme Court Clarifies “Timely” Rule 59(e) Motions in Family Court

When Income Disputes Complicate Child Support: Key Lessons from Brantley v. Brantley
South Carolina Court of Appeals | August 30, 2023

The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently issued an important decision in Brantley v. Brantley, 441 S.C. 284 (2023), addressing critical issues that frequently arise in family law cases: income determination for self-employed parents, contempt findings, and attorney’s fees awards. This case provides valuable guidance for parents navigating child support disputes and demonstrates the serious consequences of failing to cooperate with financial disclosure requirements.

Case Background
Dennis and Ingrid Brantley divorced in 2016 after 17 years of marriage. They had three children together and initially agreed to specific income figures and child support arrangements in their divorce decree. However, just two years later, Mother filed an action seeking custody changes and child support recalculation, alleging Father’s income was significantly higher than previously disclosed.

What followed was a contentious three-year battle that culminated in important appellate guidance on several key family law issues.

The Central Issue: Determining Income for Self-Employed Parents
The most significant issue in this case was Father’s actual income. As a self-employed businessman with income from three separate businesses, Father’s financial situation was complex. However, complexity quickly turned to controversy when the family court found Father was not a credible witness.

Red Flags That Undermined Credibility
The court identified numerous problems with Father’s financial disclosures:

Miscategorization of rent payments, income, and business versus personal expenditures
Multiple errors and omissions across several years of tax returns
Admitted “sloppy bookkeeping”
Failure to list property on financial declarations
Inaccurate information on claimed child expenses
Accounting mistakes on tax returns

The Court’s Response
When a parent’s financial declarations are unreliable, the family court must look to other evidence to determine income. In this case, Mother hired forensic accountant Christopher Leventis, who reviewed Father’s bank statements, credit card statements, and tax returns to determine his actual income.

Father challenged Leventis’s qualifications and conclusions, but the Court of Appeals upheld the family court’s reliance on the expert testimony, finding:

“Father’s arguments fail due to his inability to supply the court with any meaningful representation of his income.”

The court emphasized a crucial principle: A party cannot complain about errors that his own conduct created. Father’s refusal to provide accurate financial information precluded him from challenging the income determination on appeal.

Practical Takeaway: The Importance of Financial Transparency
This case illustrates why complete and accurate financial disclosure is essential in family court:

1. Credibility matters: Once a court finds a party lacks credibility regarding finances, all of that party’s testimony becomes suspect.
2. The court will find your income: If you don’t provide accurate information, the court will rely on expert analysis, bank records, and circumstantial evidence—which may result in a higher income finding than if you had been forthcoming.
3. You’ll pay for the investigation: Father was ultimately ordered to pay $75,000 in attorney’s fees, in part because his lack of cooperation required Mother to hire a forensic accountant.
4. Self-inflicted wounds: Courts will not relieve parties from consequences of their own non-cooperation.

Contempt Findings: Notice Requirements Matter
The court also addressed whether Father was in contempt for:

Failing to provide 90 days’ notice of his move and his new permanent address
Enrolling his oldest son in a new high school

The Move: Contempt Affirmed
Father signed a one-year lease on March 13, 2018, but only vaguely informed Mother on March 7 that he intended to move “on or after May 15.” The court found this violated the clear requirement to provide 90 days’ notice of intent to move and to keep Mother advised of his permanent address.

The court stated: “It is apparent that Father had the premeditated intention of moving” and that “failure to obey [a court order] is not excused just because a party dons blinders and convinces himself a court order does not mean what it plainly says.”

School Enrollment: Contempt Reversed
However, the court reversed the contempt finding for enrolling the child in summer school at a new high school. The temporary order required the children to “finish the school year” in their current district and noted the case would be “fast-tracked” to determine future enrollment.

The Court of Appeals found this language wasn’t clear enough to prohibit summer school enrollment, emphasizing that contempt requires willful disobeyance of a “clear and certain” order, not an implied one.

Practice tip: When drafting temporary orders involving school enrollment, be explicit about whether the restriction applies only to the current school year or extends to summer programs and the following year.

Attorney’s Fees: When Uncooperative Conduct Justifies Large Awards
Father was ordered to pay $75,000 in attorney’s fees—representing approximately 37% of his annual income. While this might seem excessive, the Court of Appeals upheld the award based on several factors:

The Legal Standard
Courts consider four threshold factors when determining whether to award fees:

Each party’s ability to pay
Beneficial results obtained
The parties’ respective financial conditions
Effect on each party’s standard of living

If fees are warranted, courts then consider the Glasscock factors regarding amount:

Nature, extent, and difficulty of the case
Time devoted to the case
Professional standing of counsel
Contingency of compensation
Beneficial results obtained
Customary fees for similar services

Why This Large Award Was Upheld
The court emphasized that Father’s uncooperative conduct was the “lynchpin” of the award:

His evasive testimony required extensive questioning to extract simple information
His inaccurate financial disclosures complicated the case
His failure to update discovery responses increased litigation costs
His conduct necessitated hiring a forensic accountant

The court cited its previous decision in Spreeuw v. Barker, holding: “If the case presents an added dimension of an uncooperative spouse who hampers a final resolution of the issues in dispute, we will not reward an adversary spouse for such conduct.”
Notably, while attorney’s fees awards representing 16% or even 90% of annual income have been found excessive in other cases, the uncooperative conduct in Brantley justified the 37% award.

Income Modification: A Technical Victory
The Court of Appeals did modify one aspect of the family court’s ruling. The expert testified Father’s 2017 income was $202,234.46, but the family court found it to be $203,067. The appellate court corrected this discrepancy, reducing the income finding by approximately $833.

While this may seem minor, it demonstrates the Court of Appeals’ commitment to ensuring findings align precisely with the evidence presented.

Lessons for Family Law Practitioners and Clients
For Clients:

Be transparent about your finances: Attempting to hide income or providing inaccurate information will backfire. Courts have tools to discover the truth, and your credibility will be destroyed.
Organize your records: If you’re self-employed, maintain clear separation between personal and business expenses. “Sloppy bookkeeping” is not a defense.
Follow court orders precisely: Vague compliance isn’t enough. If ordered to provide notice of a move, do so clearly and timely.
Cooperation saves money: Father’s lack of cooperation cost him dearly in attorney’s fees. Being forthright from the start is almost always less expensive.

For Practitioners:

Draft clear orders: The contempt reversal regarding school enrollment shows the importance of precise language. Don’t leave room for interpretation when restrictions are intended.
Document discovery failures: When the opposing party fails to provide accurate financial information, carefully document each instance. This creates the record necessary to support both income findings and attorney’s fees awards.
Consider forensic accountants early: When dealing with a self-employed party with complex finances, a forensic accountant can be essential—and their costs may be recoverable.
Build the record for fees: The family court’s detailed analysis of the E.D.M. and Glasscock factors was key to the fee award being upheld. Document not just your time, but how opposing party’s conduct increased the work required.

Conclusion
Brantley v. Brantley reinforces fundamental principles in South Carolina family law: courts expect honesty and cooperation in financial matters, will not reward obstructive conduct, and have broad discretion to award attorney’s fees when a party’s behavior unnecessarily complicates litigation.

For self-employed parents facing child support disputes, this case sends a clear message: accurate financial disclosure is not optional, and attempting to obscure your true income will ultimately cost you far more than being forthright from the start.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are facing child support issues, income disputes, or contempt allegations, contact an experienced family law attorney to discuss your specific situation.
Klok Law Firm LLC | Family Law Practice | Charleston, South Carolina