In Stoney v. Stoney, Op. No. 5431 (S.C. Ct. App. filed July 27, 2016) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. 30 at 40), Mr. Stoney’s brother intervened as a party to his brother’s marital litigation. He was minding his brother’s business because he engaged in business with his brother. Moreover, loans and real property interests that resulted from those dealings were at issue in the equitable distribution of his brother’s marital estate.

Although the appellate court agreed with the family court judge In Stoney v. Stoney, Op. No. 5431. The brother had standing to intervene and be named a party to the marital litigation. The extent of the brother’s intervention was too much for the appellate court’s liking.

Why did the Court Allow the Brother to Mind his Brother’s Business?

Pursuant to the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, a person shall be permitted to intervene in an action as long as the application is timely. “When the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action.  Moreover, he is so situated that the disposition of the action may be a practical matter. Impair or impede his ability to protect that interest unless existing parties adequately represent the applicant’s interest.” Rule 24(a), SCRCP.

To intervene, standing must be established. “A party has standing if the party has a personal stake in the subject matter of a lawsuit and is a ‘real party in interest.'” Bailey v. Bailey, 312 S.C. 454, 458, 441 S.E.2d 325, 327 (1994). “A real party in interest . . . is one who has a real, actual, material or substantial interest in the subject matter of the action. As distinguished from one who has only a nominal, formal, or technical interest in, or connection with, the action.” Id. at 458, 441 S.E.2d at 327.

In Stoney, although the wife testified that the brother had made no attempts to be reimbursed by her husband prior to the marital litigation. The trial court found that the brother was allowed to intervene and had standing to do so.

The Ruling of Family Court In Stoney v. Stoney, Op. No. 5431

The family court ruled that the brother of Mr. Stoney was allowed to enter the litigation because He;

1. Was a joint owner of some marital property.
2. Was a co-obligor on certain marital debts.
3. Mortgaged some of his own property to obtain funds for Mr. Stoney’s businesses.
4. Made loans to Mr. Stoney to protect Mr. Stoney’s business interests.

Upon review, the appellate court agreed with the family court judge in that the brother properly intervened and had a real interest in the marital litigation because the;

1. Brother was a co-obligor of much of the marital debt.
2. Brother had an interest in real estate that was subject to and part of the marital litigation.
3. Testimony of the court-appointed CPA confirmed the brother’s involvement in the business and finances of the parties.

Brother, Mind.

Although the appellate court saw the brother’s intervention as proper. Furthermore, it was not keen on how the brother kept minding his brother’s business in other areas of the marital litigation. Instead, the appellate court found that the brother needed to mind his business. Especially when it came to issues relating to property in which he had no ownership interest.

For Example, At trial, the brother’s counsel interrupted Mr. Stoney when he tried to offer a stipulation. Moreover, He successfully objected to issues that did not relate to the brother’s interest in the litigation. Such as the parenting coordinator’s affidavit and a witness’ testimony regarding Mr. Stoney’s false statements to people about his wife’s sexuality were allowed to cross-examine a former employee and babysitter of Mr. and Mrs. Stoney on matters that did not relate to the brother. The family court asked them asks them to draft the Final Order. That dealt only with the parties’ grounds for divorce in which the brother, again, had no interest.

Upon review, the appellate court said it was time for the brother to mind. Furthermore, for that reason, others are unrelated to the brother’s intervention. The appellate court reversed and remanded the family court’s decisions regarding the issues of alimony, child support, and equitable distribution of the marital estate.