Commercial Credit Corp. v. Knight, 20802
| Decision Date | 31 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 20802,20802 |
| Citation | 272 S.C. 435,248 S.E.2d 589 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. John B. KNIGHT and Sylvia Knight, Respondents. |
J. Reese Daniel, Columbia, for appellant.
Eston W. Page, Laurens, for respondents.
This appeal is from an order permitting respondents Knight to answer and denying appellant's motion for default judgment. We reverse.
A claim and delivery action was instituted by appellant Commercial Credit Corporation by service of a verified summons and complaint on June 24, 1977. Respondents did not serve an answer within twenty days after service, but contacted appellant's attorney who responded by letter quoting an amount appellant would accept to bring the accounts current provided payment was tendered by July 19th. Respondents neither tendered payment nor answered the complaint by that date.
Thereafter, appellant Commercial Credit Corporation refused to accept any part payment. Only then did respondents consult legal counsel, and by motion of August 9th, moved for an order permitting them to answer or otherwise plead. There was no affidavits attached to the motion, although a certificate of meritorious defense was included.
On August 14, 1977, appellant made a motion for default judgment. At the hearing, respondents presented no affidavits or other supporting documents. The trial judge, however, issued an order allowing respondents to answer or otherwise plead and denying appellant's motion for default judgment.
The trial judge was in error. In Lee v. Peek, 240 S.C. 203, 125 S.E.2d 353 (1962), this Court laid to rest the mistaken belief that less showing was necessary to permit the filing of a delayed answer under Code Section 15-13-90 (1976) than to re-open a judgment under Code Section 15-27-130 (1976). The required showing for relief Before a default order or judgment is precisely the same as for relief After a default other or judgment.
The trial judge apparently concluded that the letter from appellant's counsel extending the time for payment also extended the time for answering. There is nothing in the record to support this construction. Even assuming that the court was correct in construing appellant's offer and compromise as an extension of the deadline for answering until July 19th, respondents let this deadline pass without answering, and did not even obtain counsel until August.
Apart from committing an abuse of discretion in permitting r...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lord Jeff Knitting Co., Inc. v. Mills
...is required by" the Supreme Court [ Sanders v. Weeks, 270 S.C. 214, 215, 241 S.E.2d 565, 566 (1978); see also Commercial Credit Corp. v. Knight, 272 S.C. 435, 248 S.E.2d 589 (1978) ] and in that it does not contain any specific finding that Mills has a meritorious defense to each action. Se......
-
Mann v. Walker
...(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, and (2) the existence of a meritorious defense. Commercial Credit Corporation v. Knight, 272 S.C. 435, 248 S.E.2d 589 (1978). An order of the trial judge issued pursuant to this section will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of......
-
Davis v. Lunceford, 21214
...240 S.C. 203, 125 S.E.2d 353; Worrell v. Satterfield Construction Co., Inc., 269 S.C. 532, 238 S.E.2d 215; Commercial Credit Corporation v. Knight, 272 S.C. 435, 248 S.E.2d 589. The order of the lower court contains no findings as to whether excusable neglect and a meritorious claim existed......
-
Davis v. Lunceford, 0013
...neglect. Davis v. Lunceford; Lee v. Peek; Worrell v. Satterfield Construction Co., 269 S.C. 532, 238 S.E.2d 215; Commercial Credit Corp. v. Knight, 272 S.C. 435, 248 S.E.2d 589. Neither the statute nor the decisions noted mandate dismissal with We find the language of Small v. Mungo, 254 S.......