Bell, Matter of, 22559

• Decision Date: 08 April 1986
• Docket Number: No. 22559,22559
• Citation: 345 S.E.2d 475,289 S.C. 290
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: In the Matter of Richard C. BELL, Respondent. . Heard

Page 475

345 S.E.2d 475

289 S.C. 290

In the Matter of Richard C. BELL, Respondent.

No. 22559.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard April 8, 1986.

Decided June 9, 1986.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen. Richard B. Kale, Jr., and Asst. Atty. Gen. Ruby B. McClain, Cola, for complainant.

Capers G. Barr, III, of Barr, Barr & McIntosh, Charleston, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This matter is before the Court as a result of a report of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The Executive Committee has found Attorney-Respondent, Richard C. Bell, guilty of misconduct. We agree that he is guilty of misconduct but disagree with the sanction recommended.

The facts are not greatly in dispute. Curt O. Wood, Sr. and his wife, Jacqueline Wood, jointly owned a parcel of real estate subject to a mortgage. The mortgage holder brought an action to foreclose. The Respondent represented Mr. Wood. Mrs. Wood was in default and did not participate in the foreclosure action. Respondent personally bought the property at the sale. It brought $5,197.43 more than required to extinguish all debts, claims, and costs. This amount remained in the escrow account of the Master-In-Equity for Dorchester County.

The Respondent, as attorney for Mr. Wood, petitioned the court to issue its Order providing that the funds be released by the Master and divided equally between his client and Mrs. Wood who was not represented and who lived in Maryland. The Circuit Court Judge issued his Order dated June 3, 1982, directing the Master-In-Equity to disburse two checks: one in the amount of $2,598.71 to Mr. Wood and one for $2,598.72 to Mrs. Wood. The Respondent took both checks for transmittal to the parties even though he did not represent Mrs. Wood and even though she was an adversary to his client in impending domestic family court litigation.

About ten days later, Respondent transmitted Mrs. Wood's check to Attorney George Sink who did not represent her but who previously had served as her attorney in other matters. No good reason appears in the record for Respondent's assuming control of Mrs. Wood's check and delivering it to Attorney Sink unless, perhaps, he desired to help a fellow member of the Bar settle a fee dispute between him (Sink) and Mrs. Wood growing out of previous litigation. In so doing, he wrongfully took charge of money which was not his to control.

About two months after Respondent gave the check to Sink, Mr. and Mrs. Woods were in the Family Court of Dorchester County in a divorce proceeding. She was now represented by Mr. James Bell. Mr. Wood was represented by the Respondent, Richard C. Bell. Equitable distribution of marital property was one of the issues upon which the judge was required to rule. An Order of Divorce and equitable distribution was signed by the Family Court Judge October 1, 1982. Testimony was taken relative to the check Mrs. Wood was due from the foreclosure sale. She testified that she had not received the same, and Mr. Wood contended that she had. The check was at that time in the possession of Mr. Sink; but apparently, neither Mrs. Wood nor Respondent advised the Family Court Judge of this fact.

Reference to the mortgage foreclosure by the Family Court Judge is made as follows:

The Petitioner [Mr. Wood] testified that from the proceeds of the foreclosure sale the sum of Five Thousand ($5,000.00) was left which he stated he divided with the Respondent; however, Respondent denied ever receiving the money. Further, from the value of the lots as testified to there was a twelve thousand dollars ($12,000.00) loss as a result of the foreclosure sale.

Promptly...