Edwards v. Timmons

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Edwards v. Timmons

377 S.E.2d 97, 297 S.C. 314, 1988 S.C. LEXIS 146

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedAugust 1, 1988

Docket22891

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 377 S.E.2d 97 (Edwards v. Timmons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edwards v. Timmons, 377 S.E.2d 97, 297 S.C. 314, 1988 S.C. LEXIS 146 (S.C. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Respondents (Buyers) commenced this action to quiet title to a parcel of real estate they purchased from appellant (Seller). Seller counterclaimed to recover the property on the ground of fraud. Seller’s request for a jury trial was denied and the action was referred to a master. The order of reference was not appealed. The master found no fraud. The circuit court adopted the master’s findings and quieted title in Buyers’ favor. We affirm.

Seller claims Buyers’ title to the property is fraudulent because it is based on perjurious testimony and forgery. Findings by a master-in-equity with which the circuit court concurs will not be disturbed on appeal unless without evidentiary support. Townes Assoc., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S. C. 81, 221 S. E. (2d) 773 (1976). The master found no fraud in Buyers’ acquisition of the property. This finding is supported by the record and we find no error.

Seller claims she was deprived of due process because she was not given a jury trial and the hearing on her counterclaim for fraud was inadequate. Seller’s counterclaim for fraud was the subject of a pending action she filed to recover the same property. A counterclaim is not compulsory if at the time the action was commenced the claim was the subject of another pending *316 action. Rule 13(a), SCRCP. A defendant who brings a legal but permissive counterclaim to an action in equity waives his right to a jury trial. Johnson v. South Carolina Nat'l Bank, 292 S. C. 51, 354 S. E. (2d) 895 (1987). The circuit court properly refused Seller’s request for a jury trial. In any event, Seller did not appeal the order of reference which is therefore the law of the case. Creed v. Stokes, 285 S. C. 542, 331 S. E. (2d) 351 (1985).

Further, the master’s report indicates he considered evidence on the issue of fraud, including Seller’s testimony that the signature on the deed was a forgery, but found it unconvincing. Seller’s unsubstantiated complaints regarding due process are not supported by the record and we find no error.

Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

Respondents (Buyers) commenced this action to quiet title to a parcel of real estate they purchased from appellant (Seller). Seller counterclaimed to recover the property on the ground of fraud. Seller’s request for a jury trial was denied and the action was referred to a master. The order of reference was not appealed. The master found no fraud. The circuit court adopted the master’s findings and quieted title in Buyers’ favor. We affirm.

Seller claims Buyers’ title to the property is fraudulent because it is based on perjurious testimony and forgery. Findings by a master-in-equity with which the circuit court concurs will not be disturbed on appeal unless without evidentiary support. Townes Assoc., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S. C. 81, 221 S. E. (2d) 773 (1976). The master found no fraud in Buyers’ acquisition of the property. This finding is supported by the record and we find no error.

Seller claims she was deprived of due process because she was not given a jury trial and the hearing on her counterclaim for fraud was inadequate. Seller’s counterclaim for fraud was the subject of a pending action she filed to recover the same property. A counterclaim is not compulsory if at the time the action was commenced the claim was the subject of another pending *316 action. Rule 13(a), SCRCP. A defendant who brings a legal but permissive counterclaim to an action in equity waives his right to a jury trial. Johnson v. South Carolina Nat'l Bank, 292 S. C. 51, 354 S. E. (2d) 895 (1987). The circuit court properly refused Seller’s request for a jury trial. In any event, Seller did not appeal the order of reference which is therefore the law of the case. Creed v. Stokes, 285 S. C. 542, 331 S. E. (2d) 351 (1985).

Further, the master’s report indicates he considered evidence on the issue of fraud, including Seller’s testimony that the signature on the deed was a forgery, but found it unconvincing. Seller’s unsubstantiated complaints regarding due process are not supported by the record and we find no error.

Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 S.E.2d 97, 297 S.C. 314, 1988 S.C. LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-timmons-sc-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack