Jordan v. Darrah

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Jordan v. Darrah

388 S.E.2d 639, 300 S.C. 401, 1990 S.C. LEXIS 32

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedFebruary 5, 1990

Docket23147

StatusPublished

This text of 388 S.E.2d 639 (Jordan v. Darrah) 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

Jordan v. Darrah, 388 S.E.2d 639, 300 S.C. 401, 1990 S.C. LEXIS 32 (S.C. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This appeal is from an order vacating a default judgment for excusable neglect under Rule 60(b), SCRCP. As the basis of this ruling, the trial judge found the summons in this case was irregular. We adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Wham v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc., 298 S. C. 462, 381 S. E. (2d) 499 (Ct. App. 1989), and hold the summons was sufficient.

An order vacating a judgment for excusable neglect will be reversed as an abuse of discretion if the trial judge’s decision is controlled by an error of law. See Renney v. Dobbs House, Inc., 275 S. C. 562, 274 S. E. (2d) 290 (1981); Mitchell Supply Co. v. Gaffney, 297 S. C. 160, 375 S. E. (2d) 321 (Ct. App. 1988). The trial judge’s conclusion the summons was irregular was an error of law that does riot support a finding of excusable neglect. Accordingly, the order vacating the default judgment is

Reversed.

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

Per Curiam:

This appeal is from an order vacating a default judgment for excusable neglect under Rule 60(b), SCRCP. As the basis of this ruling, the trial judge found the summons in this case was irregular. We adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Wham v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc., 298 S. C. 462, 381 S. E. (2d) 499 (Ct. App. 1989), and hold the summons was sufficient.

An order vacating a judgment for excusable neglect will be reversed as an abuse of discretion if the trial judge’s decision is controlled by an error of law. See Renney v. Dobbs House, Inc., 275 S. C. 562, 274 S. E. (2d) 290 (1981); Mitchell Supply Co. v. Gaffney, 297 S. C. 160, 375 S. E. (2d) 321 (Ct. App. 1988). The trial judge’s conclusion the summons was irregular was an error of law that does riot support a finding of excusable neglect. Accordingly, the order vacating the default judgment is

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

388 S.E.2d 639, 300 S.C. 401, 1990 S.C. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordan-v-darrah-sc-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack