Felts v. Richland County, 23320

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtCHANDLER; Finally, the County's Personnel Director; GREGORY
Citation400 S.E.2d 781,303 S.C. 354
PartiesClarence E. FELTS, Jr., Petitioner, v. RICHLAND COUNTY and The Township Auditorium, Respondents. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 23320,23320
Decision Date22 October 1990

A. Philip Baity of Ridley, Ridley and Burnette, Rock Hill, and Joseph L. Savitz, III, Columbia, for petitioner.

C. Dennis Aughtry and Mary Alice Hobbs, both of the Richland County Attorney's Office, Columbia, for respondents.

CHANDLER, Justice:

We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in Felts v. Richland County, 299 S.C. 214, 383 S.E.2d 261 (Ct.App.1989).

We affirm.


Petitioner, Clarence Felts (Felts), was employed as Deputy Director of The Township Auditorium (Township). He was discharged in May, 1986, by Township Director, Arthur herbert (Herbert). His attempt

                to file a grievance under the Richland County grievance procedure was denied on the ground that he was not a County employee.   Felts then commenced this declaratory judgment action, claiming that he was a County employee.   Circuit Court's finding that he was not was affirmed by the Court of Appeals

1. Does the "any evidence" standard of review govern?

2. Does any evidence of record support the finding that Felts was not a County employee?


Felts contends that the Court of Appeals should have applied a "preponderance" of the evidence standard of review rather than an "any evidence" standard. 1 We disagree.

In equitable actions, the appellate court may find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976). In law actions, the lower court must be affirmed where there is "any evidence" to support its findings. Id.

A suit for declaratory judgment is neither legal nor equitable, but is determined by the nature of the underlying issue. An issue essentially one at law will not be transformed into one in equity simply because declaratory relief is sought. See, Legette v. Smith, 226 S.C. 403, 85 S.E.2d 576 (1955).

Here, the action was one to construe Felt's employment contract and, therefore, at law. Hofer v. St. Clair, 298 S.C. 503, 381 S.E.2d 736 (1987). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals correctly applied the "any evidence" standard of review.


The primary consideration in determining whether a master-servant relationship exists is whether the purported master has the right to control the servant in the performance of his work, and the manner in which it is done. Standard Oil Company v. Anderson, 212 U.S. 215, 29 S.Ct. 252, 53 L.Ed. 480 (1909); Young v. Warr, 252 S.C. 179, 165 S.E.2d 797 (1969). The principle factors indicating the right of control are (1) direct evidence of the right to, or exercise of, control, (2) method of payment, (3) furnishing of equipment and (4) right to fire. Chavis v. Watkins, 256 S.C. 30, 180 S.E.2d 648 (1971).

The Act creating Township Auditorium vests in the Board of Trustees control over its operations and employees. See Act No. 640, 1961 Acts and Joint Resolutions.

The Township Director, Arthur Herbert, testified that he had sole authority to hire and fire Township employees, and that the Township is a completely separate entity from the County. He testified, further, that he himself was not a County employee, and Felts worked directly under his supervision.

The County Finance Director, Thomas Whitaker, testified that, although Felts was paid by Richland County, the Township reimbursed County for all payroll and benefit expenses. He also testified that Felts was not, and had never been, a County employee. Additionally, Felts himself testified that raises and promotions were in the discretion of Herbert and the Board of Trustees.

Finally, the County's Personnel Director, J.P. Faust, a witness on behalf of Felts, conceded that members of the Board were not County employees.

Admittedly, there is evidence supporting Felts' contention that he reasonably believed himself to be a County employee. However, under our standard of review, we are constrained to determine whether there is any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
113 cases
  • Eldridge v. Greenwood, 2851.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 15, 1998
    ...The nature of the underlying issue determines whether a suit for declaratory judgment is legal or equitable. Felts v. Richland County, 303 S.C. 354, 400 S.E.2d 781 (1991). While an action to quiet title is usually one in equity, the main purpose of the complaint determines the character of ......
  • Sloan v. Greenville County, 3704.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 8, 2003
    ...South Carolina Med. Malpractice Liab. Joint Underwriting Ass'n, 347 S.C. 642, 645, 557 S.E.2d 670, 672 (2001); Felts v. Richland County, 303 S.C. 354, 355, 400 S.E.2d 781, 781 (1991); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Auto World of Orangeburg, 334 S.C. 137, 140, 511 S.E.2d 692, 694 (Ct.App. 1999). Th......
  • Normandy Corp. v. Sc Dept. of Transp., 4640.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 17, 2009
    ...City of Hartsville v. S.C. Mun. Ins. & Risk Fin. Fund, 382 S.C. 535, 543, 677 S.E.2d 574, 578 (2009) (quoting Felts v. Richland County, 303 S.C. 354, 356, 400 S.E.2d 781, 782 (1991)). Condemnation actions are actions at law. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. Arnold, 287 S.C. 584, 586, 340 S.E.2d 535......
  • Lowcountry Open Land Trust v. State, 3388.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 10, 2001
    ...or equitable, and is characterized as such by the nature of the underlying issue outlined in the complaint. See Felts v. Richland County, 303 S.C. 354, 400 S.E.2d 781 (1991); Clark v. Hargrave, 323 S.C. 84, 473 S.E.2d 474 (Ct.App.1996). Although an action to quiet title generally lies in eq......
  • 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