Morrison, Matter of, No. 24397

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtMOORE; FINNEY
Citation468 S.E.2d 651,321 S.C. 370
PartiesIn the Matter of Joe R. MORRISON. In re Petition for allowance of claim of Barbara J. BUTTON. wherein Barbara J. Button is, Appellant, and The Estate of Joe R. Morrison, By and Through its Personal Representative J. Edward Holler is, Respondent. . Heard
Decision Date08 February 1996
Docket NumberNo. 24397

Page 651

468 S.E.2d 651
321 S.C. 370
In the Matter of Joe R. MORRISON.
In re Petition for allowance of claim of Barbara J. BUTTON.
wherein Barbara J. Button is, Appellant,
and
The Estate of Joe R. Morrison, By and Through its Personal
Representative J. Edward Holler is, Respondent.
No. 24397.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Feb. 8, 1996.
Decided March 25, 1996.

[321 S.C. 371] James T. McLaren and C. Dixon Lee, III, both of McLaren & Lee, Columbia, for Appellant.

Stanley G. Freeman, of Holler, Olive, Dennis, Corbett & Garner; and James B. Richardson, Jr., of Svalina, Richardson & Smith, Columbia, for Respondent.

MOORE, Justice:

This appeal is from an order of the circuit court 1 disallowing appellant's (Button's) claim against the estate of Joe R. Morrison. We affirm.

FACTS

In 1982, a daughter was born out-of-wedlock to Button and Joe Morrison in New Mexico. Morrison acknowledged paternity and contributed to the support of Button and the child. In 1983, Button and the child moved to South Carolina. By 1987, however, the relationship between Button and Morrison had deteriorated and Button commenced an action in family court seeking child support and other relief.

Before Morrison served his answer, the parties attempted to negotiate a settlement. A hearing was held in family court on August

Page 652

6, 1987, for approval of a settlement agreement. Button appeared at the hearing and expressed her reservations about the proposed settlement. Despite Button's initial protestations, she finally agreed with the family court that it was fair and gave her "voluntary" consent.

The next day, Button's counsel contacted the family court and advised that his client felt pressured and was not willing to honor the agreement. The family court ordered counsel to continue preparing the settlement order as instructed. On August 12, a final order and decree was entered based on the settlement agreement. The order provided, among other things, that Morrison was to pay $1,000 per month in child support and maintain a life insurance policy in the amount of $100,000 for the child's benefit.

Meanwhile, Button consulted another lawyer and on August 10, before entry of the family court's order, she filed with the family court a notice dismissing the action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1), SCRCP.

After issuance of the family court order on August 12, Button timely appealed on the ground the family court had no jurisdiction to enter this order after her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 practice notes
  • Nelson v. QHG OF SOUTH CAROLINA INC., No. 3626.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 14, 2003
    ...an answer or motion for summary judgment. Burry & Son Homebuilders, Inc. v. Ford, 310 S.C. 529, 426 S.E.2d 313 (1992); In re Morrison, 321 S.C. 370, 373, 468 S.E.2d 651, 652-53 (1996) ("[U]nder the plain language of paragraph (a)(1), a plaintiff has an unconditional right to voluntarily dis......
  • WILLIAMSBURG RURAL v. WILLIAMSBURG, No. 3707.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 8, 2003
    ...court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case); In re Morrison, 321 S.C. 370, 468 S.E.2d 651 (1996) (recognizing court's ruling is the law of the case where it is not contested on appeal); Buckner v. Preferred Mut. I......
  • Fountain v. Fred's, Inc., Appellate Case No. 2017-000688
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 12, 2020
    ...to the reasonableness of the settlement––including Wildevco and Fred's potential liability––is the law of the case.15 See In re Morrison , 321 S.C. 370, 372 n.2, 468 S.E.2d 651, 652 n.2 (1996) (noting an unappealed ruling becomes the law of the case and precludes further consideration of th......
  • Bakala v. Bakala, No. 25586.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 27, 2003
    ...454 S.E.2d 307 (1995). Judge Segars-Andrews's unappealed ruling finding no jurisdiction is therefore the law of the case. In re Morrison, 321 S.C. 370, 468 S.E.2d 651 (1996). Moreover, as discussed below, we find on the merits the motion to quash was properly 6. Deposit of funds as purging ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
41 cases
  • Nelson v. QHG OF SOUTH CAROLINA INC., No. 3626.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 14, 2003
    ...an answer or motion for summary judgment. Burry & Son Homebuilders, Inc. v. Ford, 310 S.C. 529, 426 S.E.2d 313 (1992); In re Morrison, 321 S.C. 370, 373, 468 S.E.2d 651, 652-53 (1996) ("[U]nder the plain language of paragraph (a)(1), a plaintiff has an unconditional right to voluntarily dis......
  • WILLIAMSBURG RURAL v. WILLIAMSBURG, No. 3707.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 8, 2003
    ...court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case); In re Morrison, 321 S.C. 370, 468 S.E.2d 651 (1996) (recognizing court's ruling is the law of the case where it is not contested on appeal); Buckner v. Preferred Mut. I......
  • Fountain v. Fred's, Inc., Appellate Case No. 2017-000688
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 12, 2020
    ...to the reasonableness of the settlement––including Wildevco and Fred's potential liability––is the law of the case.15 See In re Morrison , 321 S.C. 370, 372 n.2, 468 S.E.2d 651, 652 n.2 (1996) (noting an unappealed ruling becomes the law of the case and precludes further consideration of th......
  • Bakala v. Bakala, No. 25586.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 27, 2003
    ...454 S.E.2d 307 (1995). Judge Segars-Andrews's unappealed ruling finding no jurisdiction is therefore the law of the case. In re Morrison, 321 S.C. 370, 468 S.E.2d 651 (1996). Moreover, as discussed below, we find on the merits the motion to quash was properly 6. Deposit of funds as purging ......
  • 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