Padgett v. Sun News, 21705

• Decision Date: 19 May 1982
• Docket Number: No. 21705,21705
• Citation: 292 S.E.2d 30,278 S.C. 26
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: , 8 Media L. Rep. 1780 Carroll D. PADGETT, Jr., Respondent, The SUN NEWS and The Sun Publishing Company, Appellants. James P. STEVENS, Jr., Respondent, v. The SUN NEWS and The Sun Publishing Company, Appellants. (two cases).

Page 30

292 S.E.2d 30

278 S.C. 26, 8 Media L. Rep. 1780

Carroll D. PADGETT, Jr., Respondent The SUN NEWS and The Sun Publishing Company, Appellants James P. STEVENS, Jr., Respondent, v. The SUN NEWS and The Sun Publishing Company, Appellants. (two cases).

No. 21705.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 19, 1982.

McCutcheon & McCutcheon of Conway, Robinson, McFadden, Moore & Pope, Columbia, and Harold B. Wahl, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellants.

J. M. Long, Jr., Myrtle Beach, for respondents.

LEWIS, Chief Justice:

This appeal is taken from judgments entered upon consolidated jury trial of two actions for defamation. In substantially identical complaints, the respondents, Carroll D. Padgett, Jr., and James P. Stevens, Jr., alleged that three articles published by the appellant newspaper between December 1976 and March 1977, were libelous in various particulars. Neither of these are public officials or public figures. Actual and punitive damages were awarded each plaintiff by the jury. Motions by the defendant newspaper for directed verdicts were made at conclusion of the evidence and denied. We reverse.

This litigation has its background, in part, in a political campaign in Horry County, South Carolina, in 1976, in which State Senator James P. Stevens (father of one of Plaintiffs-Respondents) was a candidate for re-election. He was opposed by John Reaves, who, at that time, was City Attorney and Recorder for the town of Loris. The campaign was "very heated" and at one campaign meeting a physical encounter occurred between Senator Stevens and Reaves, resulting in the bringing of criminal charges against the Senator by Reaves. The criminal proceedings attracted considerable public attention, with respondent Padgett, an attorney, representing Senator Stevens. During the same period, Senator Stevens and his son (Stevens, Jr.) were attorneys for Reaves' wife in a divorce action.

The newspaper articles complained of in the present actions were published at a time when the respondents were personally parties to litigation with Reaves and were reports of that litigation. This litigation began with the institution by Reaves of two actions on December 6, 1976 in the Court of Common Pleas for Horry County. In one of these, Senator Stevens and his son (James P. Stevens, Jr.), along with one other (Winston W. Vaught), were named as defendants. This action was instituted by the service of a Summons (complaint not served), with the nature of the cause of action endorsed on the face of the Summons as "abuse of process." The other action was also commenced by the service of a Summons (complaint not served), in which Senator Stevens, his son (Stevens, Jr.), and Padgett were named as defendants. On the face of this Summons was endorsed, "cause of action: Alienation of affection and criminal conversation." Both Summonses, after service, were filed in the office of the Clerk of Court for Horry County on December 6, 1976.

In the December 11, 1976 issue of appellant Sun News, after the filing of the foregoing Summonses but before the filing of the complaint in the action, an article was published which stated that a summons was filed in the Horry County Court of Common Pleas naming former Senator James P. Stevens, his son, James P. Stevens, Jr., and one other (Winston W. Vaught) as defendants in an action alleging abuse of process. The newspaper article then continued:

Another summons filed the same day named the two Stevenses and Loris attorney Carroll D. Padgett as defendants in an action alleging alienation of affection and criminal conversation.

No complaints were filed with the Summons. However, Reaves stated in the legal papers that he intends to file the complaints at a later date.

It is undisputed that the mentioned newspaper article accurately reported the contents of summonses which had been filed on the public records of Horry County.

After the service of the Summons in the action designated as one for alienation of affection and criminal conversation, Reaves filed a complaint in the office of the Clerk of Court on December 30, 1976, which specifically alleged that James P. Stevens, Sr., has had criminal conversation with Reaves' wife and that the defendants (Senator Stevens, Stevens, Jr., and Padgett) deliberately contrived to alienate her affections through the various acts set forth in the complaint.

Following the filing of the above complaint, the appellant published an article in its January 6, 1977, issue which stated that Senator Stevens, his son and law partner, and Loris attorney Padgett were "cited for alienation of affection in the legal papers filed by Loris attorney John L. Reaves." The article also stated:

The papers also allege that the former Horry County senator 'has had criminal conversation' with Reaves' wife Gloria K. Reaves.

In the suit, Reaves alleges that the defendants, particularly the elder Stevens, began meeting with Gloria Reaves in early 1975 'to scheme a plan to separate the plaintiff from his wife and plan lawsuits against other persons.'

According to Reaves' allegations, the purpose of the planned lawsuits was to 'blackmail a medical doctor into paying James P. Stevens, James P. Stevens, Jr., and the wife of the plaintiff the sum of $500,000.'

The article then referred to the December 6 summons in which the "two Stevenses and Padgett" were named as defendants and "identified the cause of action as alienation of affection and criminal conversation." Immediately following was printed the statement:

Neither the younger Stevens nor Padgett were cited for criminal conversation in the complaint Reaves filed later.

As in the case of the previous article concerning the filing of the Summonses, it is undisputed that the article of January 6 was a fair and accurate report of the contents of the complaint filed in the office of the Clerk of Court.

On March 28, 1977, another action was instituted by Reaves against the same defendants by the service and filing of a Summons and Complaint in which Reaves alleged that the defendants (James P. Stevens, Sr., James P. Stevens, Jr., and Carroll D. Padgett, Jr.) had advised, procured and stirred up Gloria K. Reaves (Reaves' wife) to commence several lawsuits against him without reasonable or probable cause, and that Reaves was damaged as a result of the "abovementioned actions of barratry and champerty by the defendants."

In the issue of March 29, 1977, an article was published in the respondent Sun News which stated Senator Stevens, his son and law partner James P. Stevens, Jr., and Loris attorney Carroll D. Padgett, Jr., "have been sued for encouraging lawsuits and sharing in their proceeds." The article then stated In legal papers filed Monday in the Horry County Courthouse, Reaves accused the three attorneys of barratry and champerty in connection with a marital dispute involving Reaves and his estranged wife Gloria K. Reaves.

Barratry is the offense of frequently exciting or stirring up suits or quarrels. Champerty is a sharing in the proceeds of a litigation by one who promotes it or carries it on.

As with the other articles, the article of March 29, 1977, was also a fair and accurate report of the contents of the complaint on file in the office of the Clerk of Court.

None of the actions instituted against respondents were ever brought to trial.

Beyond dispute the Summons is an indispensable part of the judicial proceeding in this State. Civil actions are commenced "in the courts of record in this State" by the service of a summons (Code Section 15-9-10), and may be commenced without the service or filing of the complaint (Code Section 15-13-230). Code Section 15-9-1000 requires that "the summons and the several pleadings in an action shall be filed with the clerk within ten days after the service thereof respectively"; and at least fourteen days before the beginning of a term of court, the plaintiff shall file in the clerk's office the summons and complaint in the cause, "endorsing thereon the nature of the issue" (Code Section 15-25-10).

It is, therefore, clear that the Summons (complaint not served), as well as the complaints, in the prior actions brought against respondents, were all required by law to be filed with the clerk of court and, when so filed, became public records in the course of a judicial proceeding. Lybrand v. The State Co., 179 S.C. 208, 184 S.E. 580.

As heretofore pointed out, it is an uncontradicted fact that the articles published by appellant were fair and accurate reports of the contents of the documents filed in these judicial proceedings and, as such, are privileged, unless actual malice is shown. Jones v. Garner, 250 S.C. 479, 158 S.E.2d 909; Lybrand v. The State Co., supra.

As of December 11th, the only document on file was the Summons which did name the respondents as defendants and which did speak of a cause of action for criminal conversation. It is true that the respondents were not charged with criminal conversation in the Complaint which was subsequently filed approximately twenty-four (24) days later, but were charged with alienation of affection. This does not make the publication of December 11th "incorrect" as of that time, however. Respondent Stevens, Jr. seems to have recognized this fact when, in his own testimony, he stated that he saw no difference in the defamatory nature of the two causes of action.

When appellant accurately published the contents of the Summons, it had a right to do so; and its actions in so publishing the contents of the summons cannot properly be judged in the light of the subsequently filed complaint, even if we, in disagreement with respondent Stevens, Jr. assume that there was a difference in the charges made in the Summons and the subsequently filed complaint.

As stated in Alexandria Gazette v. West, 198 Va. 154, 93 S.E.2d 274 (1956):

Privilege in reporting a judicial record is not measured by the legal sufficiency of the charges made in the...