In Fennell v. Fennell, Appellate Case No. 2024-000555 (S.C. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2026), the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a family court’s finding of willful contempt against a father who refused to comply with a clear provision of a divorce decree requiring him to contribute to his child’s college expenses. The decision provides an important reminder: when an obligation in a divorce decree is clear, failure to comply—without a valid excuse—can result in contempt and possibly jail time.

The Fennell’s divorce decree incorporated a settlement agreement requiring that both parents “contribute equally to the tuition and other expenses necessary” for their children to attend college. Years later, when their daughter enrolled, the father refused to pay his share. The mother filed a rule to show cause, and the family court found the father in willful contempt, ordering him to reimburse past expenses and contribute to future costs. The court also imposed purge conditions, including potential incarceration if he failed to pay, and awarded the mother attorney’s fees.

On appeal, the father argued that the college expense provision was ambiguous, that there was no true meeting of the minds, and that his failure to pay was not willful. The Court of Appeals rejected each of these arguments and affirmed in full.

At the heart of the decision is the court’s determination that the language of the agreement was clear and unambiguous. Under South Carolina law, settlement agreements incorporated into divorce decrees are interpreted using principles of contract law. Where the terms are plain, the court’s role is limited to enforcing—not rewriting—the agreement. Here, the obligation to pay “equally” toward tuition and related expenses required no interpretation. The father’s attempt to reframe or limit that obligation failed because the language itself was definitive.

That clarity drove the court’s finding of willful contempt. In South Carolina, contempt requires more than mere noncompliance; it requires a showing that the violation was willful—i.e., intentional and without adequate excuse. The Court of Appeals found that standard easily met. The father did not dispute that he failed to pay. Instead, he challenged the meaning of the provision and the validity of the obligation. But because the agreement was clear, his refusal to comply was not a misunderstanding—it was a conscious decision to disregard a court order.

Fennell reinforces a fundamental principle of family law: Our Courts enforce their Orders! When an agreement is clear and incorporated into a decree, parties are bound by its terms. A deliberate failure to comply—particularly in the face of an unambiguous obligation—will support a finding of willful contempt and expose the noncompliant party to financial sanctions and even incarceration.

Precision in drafting Orders can lead to straightforward and efficient enforcement of a prior Order.  Fennell is a cautionary tale: disagreement with an obligation in a court Order is not a defense to  an allegation of contempt.