Dedes v. Strickland, 23568
| Decision Date | 06 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 23568,23568 |
| Citation | 414 S.E.2d 132,307 S.C. 152 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | George P. DEDES, Respondent, v. Bobby W. STRICKLAND, Northwoods Auto Sales, Inc., BWS Enterprises, a South Carolina General Partnership, First Federal Savings & Loan Association of South Carolina and Georgia-Pacific Investment Company, of which Bobby W. Strickland is Appellant. . Heard |
John P. Freeman, Columbia and Joseph F. Kent, Charleston, for appellant.
Lawrence E. Richter, Jr. and Thad H. Vincent, Charleston, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a circuit court order granting summary judgment in favor of respondent George P. Dedes. We reverse and remand.
Respondent moved for summary judgment in his mortgage foreclosure action against appellant Bobby W. Strickland. Respondent's Notice and Motion for Summary Judgment were filed and served on April 13, 1989. The motion was set for hearing before Judge David H. Maring on May 8, 1989. The exact date is controverted, but notice of the hearing was mailed May 3 or 4, 1989.
Counsel for all parties appeared on May 8, 1989. The appellant was not present. At the hearing, appellant's counsel asserted that the notice of the hearing was postage metered on May 3, 1989, postmarked May 4, 1989, and received by him on May 6, 1989. He contended that the Notice of Motion and Motion dated April 13, 1989, did not constitute sufficient notice of the hearing, and that the late notice had deprived him of the opportunity to timely submit opposing affidavits and to have the appellant present. Additionally, appellant's counsel asserted that the record was incomplete since interrogatories propounded April 19, 1989, had not been answered by the respondent.
Counsel for appellant moved for a continuance in order to submit affidavits and to have the appellant present at the hearing. Judge Maring granted a continuance to May 12, 1989, but ruled that appellant was barred from submitting affidavits, other documents or testimony because the time for filing opposing affidavits expired on May 8, 1989.
On May 12, 1989, Judge Maring was unable to hear the motion and rescheduled the hearing for May 29, 1989, before Judge Walter J. Bristow. Judge Maring's rescheduling order dated May 12, 1989, noted the objection of appellant's counsel to the proceeding and apparently relied upon service of the Notice of Motion and Motion dated April 13, 1989, as constituting adequate notice of the motion hearing. Additionally, the order contained a finding that respondent's rights would be materially prejudiced if the appellant were allowed to interpose opposing material.
On May 29, 1989, Judge Bristow conducted the hearing in accordance with Judge Maring's orders and granted summary judgment in favor of respondent. A Motion For New Trial or Amendment of Judgment was filed on behalf of the appellant and denied by Judge Bristow. This appeal followed.
Appellant alleges the circuit court erred in barring the submission of affidavits in opposition to the motion for summary judgement and in allowing the summary judgment proceedings to continue despite lack of adequate notice to the appellant. We agree.
Notice requirements and time limitations are governed by the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Dupree
-
Zabinski v. Bright Acres Associates
...court. According to Appellants, their interests were prejudiced because they were not provided ten days notice. See Dedes v. Strickland, 307 S.C. 152, 414 S.E.2d 132 (1992); Rule 6(d), Pursuant to Rule 65(b), SCRCP, a trial judge can issue a temporary restraining order without providing not......
-
Ex parte McMillan
...the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Dedes v. Strickland, 307 S.C. 152, 414 S.E.2d 132 (1992); Donahue v. Donahue, 299 S.C. 353, 384 S.E.2d 741 In its order, the court detailed the history of the case, beginning with ......
-
Loftis v. SOUTH CAROLINA ELEC. AND GAS CO., 3874.
...full consideration of these materials was given. Accordingly, we find Appellants have not been prejudiced. See Dedes v. Strickland, 307 S.C. 152, 155, 414 S.E.2d 132, 134 (1992) (holding that failure to give written notice of a motion hearing is reversible error when it "wrongfully denie[s]......