1995 Permanent House Journal Printed Pages 3760-3769 - South Carolina Legislature Online

Journal of the House of Representatives
of the First Session of the 111th General Assembly
of the State of South Carolina
being the Regular Session Beginning Tuesday, January 10, 1995

Page Finder Index

Printed Page 3750, May 23 | Printed Page 3770, May 23

Printed Page 3760 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Creech's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Creech was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Judge Creech is married with 4 children, ages 24, 13, 10, and 6.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Creech appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Creech has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Creech has been a member of the bench since 1988.
Judge Creech is an active member of his church.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Creech testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Creech meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Creech qualified and said:
The people interviewed generally perceive him as intelligent, tough but fair, and a hard worker.
He is perceived to be unbiased.
Judge Creech is conscientious and takes his job seriously.
He is respected by lawyers and possesses an excellent judicial temperament.

Printed Page 3761 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

The Honorable Tommy B. Edwards
Candidate for Re-election to the Family Court
of the 10th Judicial Circuit
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Judge Edwards was screened on May 4, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
Judge Edwards demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Judge Edwards to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Edwards has never been appealed in a reported appellate decision.
Judge Edwards has been an instructor in juvenile and criminal law at Tri- County Technical College. He has also been an instructor at the S.C. Constable Training Program, a faculty advisor at the National College of District Attorneys, and a panel member at the Juvenile Justice Update conducted during the Solicitor's Conference in 1994.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Edwards was admitted to the S.C. Bar in 1976 and to the Montana Bar in 1977.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Edward's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Edwards was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Judge Edwards is married with three children, ages 16, 12, and 9.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Edwards appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Edwards has managed his financial affairs responsibly.

Printed Page 3762 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(8) Public Service:
Judge Edwards was on active duty in the U.S. Army from 1971 to 1973. He was a member of the Ready Reserve from 1973 to 1985 when he was honorably discharged.
Judge Edwards was elected to the Family Court bench in 1991.
Judge Edwards is active in church and civic activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Edwards testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Edwards meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Edwards qualified and said:
He has had significant experience in the judicial system as a private attorney, prosecutor, and as a Family Court judge.
He is respected by members of the Bar for his legal ability and analytical skills in both domestic and juvenile matters.
Judge Edwards has done an excellent job serving as Administrative Judge for the Family Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit.
His patience and temperament are excellent. His character and integrity are beyond reproach.
There was an article in the October 6, 1993, edition of The Charlotte Observer which reported that Judge Edwards began requiring counseling as a necessary step before a divorce can be issued in Oconee and Anderson family courts.

The Honorable Donald A. Fanning
Candidate for Re-election to the Family Court
of the 14th Judicial Circuit
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Judge Fanning was screened on May 3, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
Judge Fanning demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Printed Page 3763 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Judge Fanning to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
Judge Fanning has been appealed in 46 reported appellate decisions. He was reversed, in whole or in part, in 18 of those matters.
Judge Fanning received national attention for his handling of the matter of Parris v. Parris which involved issues of custody. Judge Fanning noted that the mother, Ruth Parris, was a career woman and spent time with clients at night and on the weekends. Judge Fanning awarded custody of the minor child to the father and was criticized as having allegedly held bias against the mother because she was a career woman. See article in the Charlotte Observer on December 10, 1994 and December 24, 1992. This matter is still on appeal to the S.C. Supreme Court.
In August of 1977, Judge Fanning delivered a lecture to the southeastern conference on juvenile court judges at Black Mountain, N.C. Judge Fanning reviewed the constitutional law pertaining to juvenile court and presented the annual case update. He also has made two presentations to the Family Court judges of South Carolina annual meetings concerning matters of family law.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Fanning was admitted to the Michigan Bar in 1961, the New York Bar in 1961, and the S.C. Bar in 1964.
Judge Fanning describes his legal experience as follows:

(a) 1961-1964 U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate

(b) 1964-1968 Dowling, Dowling, Sanders & Dukes

(d) 1970-1975 Donald A. Fanning, Attorney at Law (Charles Webb, III and John B. O'Neal, III, Associates)

(e) 1975-1977 Judge of the Civil and Criminal Court of Beaufort County and Judge of the Family Court of Beaufort County.

(f) 1977-Present Family Court Judge, 14th Judicial Circuit
Judge Fanning has served numerous terms as Special Circuit Court Judge by appointment of the Chief Justice.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Fanning's temperament would be excellent.

Printed Page 3764 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Fanning was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Judge Fanning is married with 3 adult children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Fanning appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Fanning has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Fanning has been a Family Court Judge since 1977.
Judge Fanning served in the United States Air Force from 1961 to 1964.
Judge Fanning was an unsuccessful candidate for Circuit Court Judge in 1980 and 1991. Judge Fanning was also an unsuccessful candidate for the Beaufort County Council in 1968 and for the S.C. House of Representatives in 1970.
Judge Fanning is active in church and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Fanning testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Fanning meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Fanning qualified and said:
He has a long record of service as a judicial officer, first as a judge of the Civil and Criminal Court of Beaufort County and judge of the Family Court of Beaufort County. When the judicial System was unified, he became a Family Court judge and has served since 1977 to the present. He has also served as a Circuit Court judge by special appointment on numerous occasions.
Those familiar with his style consider him to be a fair-minded, impartial judge. However, some of those questioned regard him as being a little impatient and short-tempered.

Printed Page 3765 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

Judge Fanning is perceived to be very attentive to the testimony. Without question, he is in charge of his courtroom.
He is perceived as someone who is very interested in achieving a just result.
Judge Fanning has been sued twice. The first action was in 1982 and was filed by Alva Eugene Kephart against the S.C. Department of Corrections, Warden George Martin, III, the Attorney General and Judge Fanning. The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which was dismissed in 1982.
Judge Fanning was also sued by Mary Peters in 1983 and 1987. The list of defendants in those matters included several circuit and Family Court judges, the former Deputy Clerk of the S.C. Supreme Court, the Circuit Court of S.C., the Clerk of Court for Beaufort County, the Sheriff of Beaufort County, the Auditor of Beaufort County, the Treasurer and the County Attorney, as well as several individuals. Ms. Peters' complaint was filed pro se and Judge Fanning reported that it was his understanding that she filed the complaint because she was dissatisfied with the outcome of some of the litigation she had been involved in South Carolina. She reportedly indicated that she wished the judicial system in county government would stop harassing her by enforcing their judgments, taxes, rules, and regulations. Mrs. Peters appeared before the Joint Committee for Judicial Screening in the past.

The Honorable Thomas E. Foster
Candidate for Re-election to the Family Court
of the 7th Judicial Circuit
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Judge Foster was screened on May 3, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
Judge Foster demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
Judge Foster is secretary/treasurer of Shoe Mart of Spartanburg, Inc. The company is in the wholesale shoe business, but Judge Foster is an investor and is not involved in the day-to-day operations. Judge Foster is also on the Board of Directors for Three Pines Cola., Inc., a golf course where he lives. He is secretary to the Board.

Printed Page 3766 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Judge Foster to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Foster has been appealed in 10 reported appellate decision. He was reversed, in whole or in part, in 5 of those matters.
Judge Foster taught college law at Spartanburg Methodist College. He also regularly teaches the legal secretary's course on family law.
Judge Foster's last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1983) was BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Foster was admitted to the Bar in 1973.
Judge Foster opened a law practice in 1973 and was associated with Roy McBee Smith until August of 1977. He was associated with Rembert D. Parler in 1977 but maintained his own practice. The two formed a partnership in 1979 which they continued until 1983. Judge Foster was elected to the Family Court in 1983.
Judge Foster served as the City Recorder for the Town of Woodruff from 1974 to 1977.
Judge Foster served as the Assistant County Attorney for Spartanburg County from 1973 to 1977. He also served as City Attorney for the Town of Woodruff from 1977 to 1983.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Foster's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Foster was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Judge Foster is married with three adult children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Foster appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Foster has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Foster has been a member of the bench since 1983.
Judge Foster served in this U.S. Army from 1959 to 1962.

Printed Page 3767 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

Judge Foster was an unsuccessful candidate for Probate Court Judge. He was also an unsuccessful candidate for the Family Court in 1981 and for the Circuit Court in 1990.
Judge Foster is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Foster testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Foster meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Foster qualified and said:
His knowledge of the law and experience both as a lawyer and a judge provide an excellent basis for the performance of his duties.
Those interviewed reported favorably on his work ethic and promptness in rendering decisions in cases before him.
Judge Foster is considered to have a superb reputation for integrity and impartiality.
He is well-respected in the legal community.

James F. Fraley, Jr., Esquire
Candidate for the Family Court of the 7th Judicial Circuit
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Mr. Fraley was screened on May 9, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
Mr. Fraley demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Fraley to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Fraley's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Fraley taught a business law course at Rutledge College.
Mr. Fraley has practiced with a number of different attorneys since his graduation from law school in 1977. He described his practice over

Printed Page 3768 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

the past 5 years as 95% domestic, less than 5% civil, and less than 5% criminal. He indicated that he appears in state court several times a week.
Mr. Fraley provided the Joint Committee with 5 significant litigated matters he described as follows:
(a) Belve v. Belve: In 1981 it was not clear how to challenge an error of the lower court in an order when the defendant was not present and in default. This case resolved that issue and is cited frequently in post judgment motions and is frequently discussed at seminars.
(b) State v. Clary: Mr. Fraley was co-counsel for the defendant in a jury trial in General Sessions court who was charged with 3 counts of reckless homicide and 3 counts of involuntary manslaughter.
(c) Youngblood v. Youngblood: Mr. Fraley represented the husband in a contested adultery case in which there was little corroboration of adultery against a wife who was also seeking alimony.
(d) State v. Boggs: Mr. Fraley was co-counsel representing a 17-year old girl charged with shooting and killing her father while he slept. The father allegedly physically and sexually abused her and her younger brother for several years.
(e) Laird v. State: Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court concerning a jury charge which contained the statement that the defendants were "prima facie guilty" if the jury found certain facts. The Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Mr. Fraley provided the Joint Committee with a list of 5 domestic appeals he handled.
Mr. Fraley has served as a special referee on one occasion.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Fraley's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Fraley was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Mr. Fraley is married with a 7 year old daughter.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Fraley appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Fraley has managed his financial affairs responsibly.

Printed Page 3769 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(8) Public Service:
Mr. Fraley is an active member of his church and of the Spartanburg Civitan Club.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Fraley testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Fraley meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Fraley qualified and said:
More than half of his practice has been devoted to family law. In the last several years the vast majority of his practice has been in the family court.
Those interviewed commented favorably on his demeanor and temperament. They also perceive him as being fair in his dealings with other lawyers.
Mr. Fraley is seen by those interviewed as industrious. He is also known as an attorney who competently represents his client.
The consensus of those interviewed was that he has the intellect, experience, and temperament to fulfill the position of family court judge.

Paul W. Garfinkel, Esquire
Candidate for the Family Court of the 9th Judicial Circuit
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Mr. Garfinkel was screened on May 9, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
Mr. Garfinkel demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
Mr. Garfinkel shares office space with 8 other attorneys and indicated on his application materials that he would recuse himself from matters in which the other attorneys were involved for a minimum of 2 years after his election.

Printed Page 3750, May 23 | Printed Page 3770, May 23

Page Finder Index