Bowen & Smoot v. Plumlee, No. 23189

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtTOAL; GREGORY
Citation391 S.E.2d 558,301 S.C. 262
PartiesBOWEN & SMOOT, a South Carolina Partnership and James T. McLaren, Respondents, v. Glenn H. PLUMLEE, III, a minor between the ages of 14 and 18; James H. Plumlee, a minor between the ages of 14 and 18; and Mark Plumlee, a minor under the age of 14, Appellants. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 23189
Decision Date07 February 1990

Page 558

391 S.E.2d 558
301 S.C. 262
BOWEN & SMOOT, a South Carolina Partnership and James T.
McLaren, Respondents,
v.
Glenn H. PLUMLEE, III, a minor between the ages of 14 and
18; James H. Plumlee, a minor between the ages of
14 and 18; and Mark Plumlee, a minor
under the age of 14, Appellants.
No. 23189.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Feb. 7, 1990.
Decided April 2, 1990.

[301 S.C. 263] Jack D. Simrill, Hilton Head Island, for appellants.

Page 559

[301 S.C. 264] Frank B.B. Knowlton, of Robinson, McFadden, Moore, Pope, Williams, Taylor & Brailsford, P.A., Columbia, and Brian C. Pitts, of Bowen & Smoot, Hilton Head Island, for respondents.

TOAL, Justice:

This action for attorneys' fees was initiated by the Attorneys against the Children of the Attorneys' former client. On appeal, the Children challenge various rulings by the trial judge concerning a 12(b)(6) motion and voluntary dismissal of the action.

FACTS

This case involves a suit by Attorneys for collection of attorneys' fees. The Attorneys represented the defendants' mother in several domestic and bankruptcy matters over a period of several years. When it became apparent that she might not pay the Attorneys, this action was brought against her children on the theory that they had benefitted from the Attorneys' services because they had received a judgment for child support. The Attorneys claim that their fees exceed $265,000.

After the Attorneys filed their Complaint, the Children filed a 12(b)(6) motion on the grounds that the Complaint failed to state a cause of action. The hearing on the 12(b)(6) motion was continued. Several days later, the Children submitted to the judge an affidavit of their mother indicating that neither she nor her children had received any money from the judgments obtained by the Attorneys. This affidavit apparently was not sent to the Attorneys. The Children also requested that their 12(b)(6) motion be converted to a Motion for Summary Judgment. Before the hearing for the Children's motion was held, the Attorneys filed a Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). The Children filed their Answer and a Counterclaim the next day. The trial judge denied the 12(b)(6) motion on the grounds that a cause of action was stated in the Complaint and refused to [301 S.C. 265] convert the motion to one for summary judgment. In addition, he dismissed the action without prejudice, including the Children's counterclaim and denied the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Nelson v. QHG OF SOUTH CAROLINA INC., No. 3626.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 14, 2003
    ...or important issues of public policy are present. Burry & Son Homebuilders, 310 S.C. at 531, 426 S.E.2d at 314; Bowen & Smoot v. Plumlee, 301 S.C. 262, 391 S.E.2d 558 (1990); Prime Med. Corp. v. First Med. Corp., 291 S.C. 296, 353 S.E.2d 294 In J.J. Lawter Plumbing v. Wen Chow Int'l Trade &......
  • Higgins v. Medical University of South Carolina, No. 2662
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 12, 1997
    ...had copies of the supporting affidavits at least 10 days before the hearing as required by Rule 56. However, in Bowen & Smoot v. Plumlee, 301 S.C. 262, 391 S.E.2d 558 (1990), our Supreme Court implied that less than express notice of the court's intent to convert would be sufficient. The Pl......
  • Burry & Son Homebuilders, Inc. v. Ford, No. 23757
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 14, 1992
    ...of right unless legal prejudice is shown by the defendant or important issues of public policy are present. Bowen & Smoot v. Plumlee, 301 S.C. 262, 391 S.E.2d 558 (1990). 1 Once legal prejudice is found, the granting or denial is within the discretion of the trial court. Moore v. Berkeley C......
  • Estate of Jones, Matter of, No. 24748
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 16, 1997
    ...between the parties. See Rankin v. Superior Auto. Ins. Co., 237 S.C. 380, 117 S.E.2d 525 (1960); see also Bowen & Smoot v. Plumlee, III, 301 S.C. 262, 391 S.E.2d 558...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Nelson v. QHG OF SOUTH CAROLINA INC., No. 3626.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 14, 2003
    ...or important issues of public policy are present. Burry & Son Homebuilders, 310 S.C. at 531, 426 S.E.2d at 314; Bowen & Smoot v. Plumlee, 301 S.C. 262, 391 S.E.2d 558 (1990); Prime Med. Corp. v. First Med. Corp., 291 S.C. 296, 353 S.E.2d 294 In J.J. Lawter Plumbing v. Wen Chow Int'l Trade &......
  • Higgins v. Medical University of South Carolina, No. 2662
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 12, 1997
    ...had copies of the supporting affidavits at least 10 days before the hearing as required by Rule 56. However, in Bowen & Smoot v. Plumlee, 301 S.C. 262, 391 S.E.2d 558 (1990), our Supreme Court implied that less than express notice of the court's intent to convert would be sufficient. The Pl......
  • Burry & Son Homebuilders, Inc. v. Ford, No. 23757
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 14, 1992
    ...of right unless legal prejudice is shown by the defendant or important issues of public policy are present. Bowen & Smoot v. Plumlee, 301 S.C. 262, 391 S.E.2d 558 (1990). 1 Once legal prejudice is found, the granting or denial is within the discretion of the trial court. Moore v. Berkeley C......
  • Estate of Jones, Matter of, No. 24748
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 16, 1997
    ...between the parties. See Rankin v. Superior Auto. Ins. Co., 237 S.C. 380, 117 S.E.2d 525 (1960); see also Bowen & Smoot v. Plumlee, III, 301 S.C. 262, 391 S.E.2d 558...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT