McCranie v. Davis, 21857
| Decision Date | 12 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 21857,21857 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Mary E. McCRANIE, Respondent, v. Lloyd D. DAVIS, Appellant. |
Gary A. Ling, of Waldman & McKelvey, North Charleston, for appellant.
N.H. Hamilton, of Hamilton & MacGregor, Summerville, for respondent.
This is an action to enforce a separation agreement. Appellant Davis contends the trial court erred in signing an order which did not embody the court's decision as pronounced at the hearing. We agree, vacate the order, and remand for further proceedings.
The parties to this action entered into a separation agreement in Dorchester County. They were subsequently divorced in Indiana. Appellant now lives in Hawaii, and respondent McCranie lives in Dorchester County.
Respondent petitioned the Dorchester County Common Pleas Court to enforce the separation agreement and increase child support. Appellant specially appeared to contest jurisdiction. At the hearing on the motion, the separation agreement was before the court, but not the subsequent divorce decree. Being unable to discern how or if the subsequent decree affected the agreement, the trial judge ruled he had insufficient information upon which to decide the jurisdictional issue. He further ruled he would hear the parties later, after they obtained the necessary information. Nevertheless, the trial judge subsequently and inadvertently signed an order finding he had jurisdiction and ordering appellant to answer or otherwise plead within twenty days.
The order was clearly contrary to the ruling the judge pronounced at the hearing. Therefore, we vacate the order and remand for a new hearing on the jurisdictional issue.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Josey v. Josey, 0847
...have said that it is reversible error for a judge to sign an order contrary to a ruling announced in open court, McCranie v. Davis, 278 S.C. 513, 299 S.E.2d 338 (1983); Martin v. Ross, 286 S.C. 43, 331 S.E.2d 785 (Ct.App.1985), where, as here, the trial judge requests proposed orders, he is......
-
Luthi v. Luthi
...as including household items such as silver, china, etc. While we are familiar with the rulings set down in McCranie v. Davis, 278 S.C. 513, 299 S.E.2d 338 (1983) that a written order clearly contrary to a ruling pronounced at the hearing will be reversed, we hold that the definition ascrib......
-
First Union Nat. Bank of South Carolina v. Hitman, Inc., 1731
...order differing from his bench ruling. Our research reveals only one case reversing a trial judge for this reason. McCranie v. Davis, 278 S.C. 513, 299 S.E.2d 338 (1983). This Court has cited the rule in several opinions, but it has never relied on it to reverse a trial court. Ward v. Martu......
-
First Union Nat. Bank of South Carolina v. Hitman, Inc.
...bound by the prior oral ruling and may issue a written order which is in conflict with the oral ruling. To the extent McCranie v. Davis, 278 S.C. 513, 299 S.E.2d 338 (1983), is inconsistent with this opinion, it is overruled. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. ...