Williams v. Vanvolkenburg
| Decision Date | 09 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 2119,2119 |
| Citation | 440 S.E.2d 408,312 S.C. 373 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Lynn WILLIAMS, d/b/a Williams Cabinets, Respondent, v. Bill VANVOLKENBURG, d/b/a Progressive Development, Perry Stalnaker and Marsha Stalnaker, of whom: Perry Stalnaker and Marsha Stalnaker are Appellants. Appeal of Perry STALNAKER and Marsha Stalnaker. . Heard |
Edward L. Graham, of Zeigler & Graham, Florence, for appellants.
Joseph F. Singleton, of Cross, Singleton, Burroughs & Norton, Conway, for respondent.
Lynn Williams, d/b/a Williams Cabinets, sued Perry and Marsha Stalnaker to foreclose a mechanic's lien. Williams furnished labor and materials on a house owned by the Stalnakers. The Stalnakers failed to answer the Complaint and were found to be in default. The master refused to set aside the default and found the Stalnakers owed Williams $4,640, which he ordered paid to Williams out of cash deposited by the Stalnakers with the Horry County Clerk of Court. The Stalnakers appeal. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
Perry and Marsha Stalnaker contracted with Bill Vanvolkenburg, d/b/a Progressive Development, to construct a new home in North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Vanvolkenburg subcontracted with Williams to furnish and install kitchen and bathroom cabinets and counter tops in the home.
Pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 29-5-90 (1991), Williams served a certificate of mechanic's lien on the Stalnakers in February, 1992. In May, 1992, Williams brought an action to foreclose the mechanic's lien. The Stalnakers were served with the Summons and Complaint on May 12, 1992, but failed to answer. Williams filed an affidavit of default on June 15, 1992. The Stalnakers filed a motion to set aside the default and a motion to permit the filing of an answer and counterclaim against Williams. The Stalnakers contend they have good cause for not answering Williams' Complaint because they forwarded it to their attorney, but he failed to answer it. They also claim to have a meritorious defense to the action.
The master refused to set aside the default. He also found the Stalnakers owed Williams $4,640 1 and ordered it paid from cash the Stalnakers had posted in an attempt to bond off a mechanic's lien of Vanvolkenburg. The Stalnakers appeal from these rulings.
A court may set aside an entry of default for good cause shown. Rule 55(c), SCRCP. Whether good cause is established is within the sound discretion of the court. Wham v. Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc., 298 S.C. 462, 381 S.E.2d 499 (Ct.App.1989). This Court will not disturb a discretionary ruling on appeal unless it appears the ruling is without evidentiary support or controlled by some error of law. Stanton v. Town of Pawley's Island, --- S.C. ----, 420 S.E.2d 502 (1992). The issue before this Court, therefore, is not whether we believe good cause existed to set aside the default, but rather, whether the master's determination is supportable by the evidence and not controlled by an error of law.
The master held the Stalnakers had not shown good cause to set aside the default. This holding was based on his finding that the Stalnakers never requested their attorney answer the Complaint. Whether the Stalnakers failed to ask their attorney to file an answer or whether the attorney was negligent in failing to answer, however, is not critical, because even if the attorney were negligent in failing to answer the Complaint, his negligence would be imputed to the Stalnakers. Roberts v. Peterson, 292 S.C. 149, 355 S.E.2d 280 (Ct.App.1987). In either case, the Stalnakers would be charged with failing to answer the Complaint. Because the Stalnakers have failed to set forth any other reason why they failed to answer the Complaint, the master's finding that the Stalnakers failed to demonstrate good cause in setting aside the default is supported by the evidence. We, therefore, find no abuse of discretion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Limehouse v. Hulsey
...the motion to set aside default is supportable by the evidence and not controlled by an error of law. Williams v. Vanvolkenburg, 312 S.C. 373, 375, 440 S.E.2d 408, 409 (Ct. App. 1994). A motion to set aside entry of default under Rule 55(c) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial ......
-
Limehouse v. Hulsey
...the motion to set aside default is supportable by the evidence and not controlled by an error of law. Williams v. Vanvolkenburg, 312 S.C. 373, 375, 440 S.E.2d 408, 409 (Ct.App.1994). A motion to set aside entry of default under Rule 55(c) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial co......
-
Bage, LLC v. Southeastern Roofing
...determining whether the trial judge's determination is supportable by the evidence and not controlled by an error of law. 312 S.C. 373, 440 S.E.2d 408 (Ct.App.1994). The seminal case articulating the application of "good cause" under Rule 55(c) to a factual scenario is Wham v. Shearson Lehm......
-
Gooding v. St. Francis Xavier Hosp., 2285
...of discretion occurs when a judge's ruling has no evidentiary support or the judge makes an error of law. Williams v. Van Volkenburg, --- S.C. ----, 440 S.E.2d 408 (Ct.App.1994). Here the trial court's refusal to allow Sorensen to testify amounted to an abuse of discretion because he based ......
-
With Friends Like These Who Needs Enemies? Getting Out of Default Is Never Easy
...(2009). [15] Id. at 609, 681 S.E.2d at 889. [16] Id. [17] 383 S.C. 610, 682 S.E.2d 263 (2009). [18] Id. at 619, 682 S.E.2d at 267. [19] 312 S.C. 373, 440 S.E.2d 408 (Ct.App. 1994). [20] Id. at 375, 440 S.E.2d at 409. [21] Id. [22] 320 S.C. 174, 463 S.E.2d 636 (Ct. App. 1995). [23] Id. at 17......