Eaddy v. Eaddy, 22202

Decision Date11 December 1984
Docket NumberNo. 22202,22202
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesDiane EADDY, Respondent, v. William L. (Billy) EADDY, Appellant. . Heard

Stebe Wukela, Jr., Florence, for appellant.

Jan L. Warner and C. Dixon Lee, III, Sumter, for respondent.

LITTLEJOHN, Chief Justice.

In this divorce action, the appellant-husband, William L. Eaddy, contests the jurisdiction of the Family Court and its award of lump-sum alimony and equitable distribution to the respondent-wife, Diane Eaddy.

The husband contends that Article III, § 14 of the Constitution of South Carolina precludes service of process upon him because he was, at the time of the service of the Summons, a member of the General Assembly which was in session. Article III, § 14 provides:

The members of both houses shall be protected in their persons and estates during their attendance on, going to and returning from the General Assembly, and ten days previous to the sitting and ten days after the adjournment thereof. But these privileges shall not protect any member who shall be charged with treason, felony or breach of the peace.

The Summons, Complaint and Rule to Show Cause were served on the husband in Columbia on February 16, 1982. In response to the Rule to Show Cause, he appeared in court at a temporary hearing, on February 23, 1982, pro se and objected to the court's exercise of jurisdiction over him. He was concerned with the political effect of the charges made. The judge agreed to seal the record to prevent press coverage and then asked him if he objected to proceeding with the hearing for temporary relief. The husband responded, "No." The trial judge conducted the temporary hearing at which he testified and ordered pendente lite support to the wife. There was no appeal from that Order.

On July 26, 1982, through his attorney, the husband filed an Answer to the Complaint. On October 1, 1982, he moved for dismissal of the action asserting "... that the court does not have jurisdiction of the person ..." because of the constitutional provision. Though not included in the written motion, it was orally argued that the court had neither personal nor subject matter jurisdiction. The motion was denied. The motion was denied because he had waived all objections by appearing and voluntarily participating in the proceedings. That ruling and Order was appealed. However the case proceeded to trial on the merits.

Both the Order overruling the jurisdiction question and the Order determining the merits of the Complaint have been appealed and are before us. The Order, on its merits, granted the wife a divorce and ordered that the husband pay lump-sum alimony and equitable distribution of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Eagle Container v. County of Newberry, 4037.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 15, 2005
    ...269 (Ct.App.2004) (citing Lake v. Reeder Constr. Co., 330 S.C. 242, 248, 498 S.E.2d 650, 653 (Ct.App.1998); see Eaddy v. Eaddy, 283 S.C. 582, 584, 324 S.E.2d 70, 72 (1984) ("[S]ubject matter jurisdiction ... may be raised at any stage of the proceeding.")). "Lack of subject matter jurisdict......
  • Badeaux v. Davis
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • September 20, 1999
    ...be waived; subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived and the issue may be raised at any stage of the proceeding. Eaddy v. Eaddy, 283 S.C. 582, 324 S.E.2d 70 (1984). Even though the issue of the Family Court's subject matter jurisdiction was not raised until appeal, and it was raised by ......
  • All Saints Parish v. Protestant Episcopal Church
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 23, 2004
    ...sua sponte by the court." Lake v. Reeder Constr. Co., 330 S.C. 242, 248, 498 S.E.2d 650, 653 (Ct. App. 1998); see Eaddy v. Eaddy, 283 S.C. 582, 584, 324 S.E.2d 70, 72 (1984) ("Subject matter jurisdiction . . . may be raised at any stage of the A. Ascertaining Beneficiaries The Diocese and t......
  • Ex Parte Cannon
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 2009
    ...STANDARD OF REVIEW Personal jurisdiction may be waived, but subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived. Eaddy v. Eaddy, 283 S.C. 582, 584, 324 S.E.2d 70, 72 (1984). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal, by a party or by the cour......
  • 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