Ted Johnson v. Badcock & More Home Furniture

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
Ted Johnson, Appellant,
v.
Badcock & More Home Furniture, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2020-001696
Appeal From Marlboro County
Paul M. Burch, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-221
Submitted May 17, 2023 – Filed June 7, 2023
AFFIRMED
Ted Johnson, of Bennettsville, pro se.
PER CURIAM: Ted Johnson appeals a circuit court order affirming the
magistrate court's dismissal of an action he filed against Badcock & More Home
Furniture (Badcock) arising from Badcock's refusal to honor a warranty on a lawn
mower that it sold to Johnson. On appeal, Johnson argues he was entitled to relief
on his claim because Badcock was in default. We affirm.
Johnson asserts that after he filed his claim in the magistrate court, Badcock
refused "service by certified mail return receipt" on three separate occasions and
failed to appear in the magistrate court on three hearing dates. Johnson further
states that despite Badcock's refusal to accept service or appear, the magistrate
dismissed his action. We hold the dismissal was proper.
The South Carolina Rules of Magistrates Court allow a summons and other
documents in a magistrate's court proceeding to be "made by certified mail, return
receipt requested and delivery restricted to the addressee." Rule 6(d)(6), SCRMC.
"Service is effective upon the date of delivery as shown on the return receipt." Id.
Furthermore, "[s]ervice pursuant to [Rule 6(d)(6)] shall not be the basis for the
entry of default judgment unless the record contains a return receipt showing the
acceptance by the defendant." Id.
The record on appeal shows none of Johnson's attempts to serve Badcock by
certified mail included a request for a return receipt or instructions that delivery be
restricted to the addressee. Furthermore, the record does not contain a return
receipt showing acceptance of the pleadings by Badcock. Therefore, Johnson's
attempt to serve Badcock by certified mail was insufficient to support the entry of
a default judgment under Rule 6(d)(6). Accordingly, we hold the magistrate did
not err in dismissing Johnson's action against Badcock and the circuit court
correctly affirmed the dismissal.
AFFIRMED. 1
WILLIAMS, C.J., and VINSON and VERDIN, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.