Plantation Federal Bank v. Gray ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
    CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
    EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
    THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
    In The Court of Appeals
    Plantation Federal Bank as successor in interest to First
    Savers Bank, Respondent,
    v.
    J. Charles Gray and Waterford Ridge Owners
    Association, Inc., Defendants,
    Of whom, J. Charles Gray is the Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2010-173846
    Appeal From Oconee County
    Ellis B. Drew, Jr., Master-in-Equity
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-064
    Heard November 1, 2012 – Filed January 30, 2013
    REVERSED AND REMANDED
    Charles R. Griffin, Jr., of Anderson, for Appellant.
    Bradley Keith Richardson, of Anderson, for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Charles Gray appeals the master-in-equity's ruling ordering
    separate trials on Plantation Federal Bank's (Bank) foreclosure action and his
    compulsory legal counterclaims. Gray argues the master erred in allowing Bank to
    proceed with its foreclosure action before his compulsory legal counterclaims were
    adjudicated. We agree and reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
    following authorities: Johnson v. S.C. Nat'l Bank, 
    292 S.C. 51
    , 54, 
    354 S.E.2d 895
    , 896 (1987) (holding that when a defendant in an equitable action asserts a
    compulsory counterclaim that alleges actions at law, both the plaintiff and the
    defendant have a right to have a jury trial on the issues raised by the compulsory
    legal counterclaim); id. at 56, 
    354 S.E.2d at 897
     (stating that if there are factual
    issues common to both the legal and equitable claims, the legal claim, "absent the
    most imperative circumstances," must be tried, that is, disposed of, first);
    Plantation Fed. Bank v. Gray, Op. No. 5075 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Jan. 30, 2013)
    (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 5 at 51) (holding the master-in-equity erred in ordering
    separate trials on a bank's foreclosure action and the defendant's compulsory legal
    counterclaims because the master's order allowed the foreclosure action to be
    decided prior to a jury trial on the compulsory legal counterclaims). We remand
    for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    REVERSED AND REMANDED.
    FEW, C.J., and WILLIAMS and PIEPER, JJ., concur.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2013-UP-064

Filed Date: 1/30/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024