Myers v. Food Town Stores, Inc.

281 S.E.2d 108, 276 S.C. 571, 1981 S.C. LEXIS 424
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedJuly 27, 1981
Docket21525
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 281 S.E.2d 108 (Myers v. Food Town Stores, Inc.) 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
Myers v. Food Town Stores, Inc., 281 S.E.2d 108, 276 S.C. 571, 1981 S.C. LEXIS 424 (S.C. 1981).

Opinion

Ness, Justice:

Appellant, Michael R. Myers, appeals from an order permitting respondent, Food Town Stores, Inc., to file a late answer. We affirm.

On September 23, 1980 respondents were personally served with a summons and complaint at their corporate offices in Salisbury, N. C. Responsive pleadings were not served until the statutory period had run. Respondent moved for permission to file a late answer pursuant to S. C. Code § 15-13-90 (1976). The trial court granted the motion on the following grounds: (1) the placement of the summons on the inside back cover of the complaint, without any reference to it in the caption of the complaint sufficiently misled or confused the respondent and constituted excusable neglect; and (2) the respondent had asserted a meritorious defense.

The sole issue to be decided is whether the trial court erred in permitting respondent to answer. We hold it did not.

An order allowing an answer beyond the time limited by the Code is within the sound discretion of the court. Brown v. Weathers, 251 S. C. 67, 160 S. E. (2d) 133 (1968). Moreover, where a discretionary order is based on factual as distinguished from legal conclusions it will not be disturbed unless without evidentiary support. Stewart v. Floyd, 274 S. C. 437, 265 S. E. (2d) 254 (1980).

[573]*573Here, the trial court held, and we agree, although appellant’s summons technically complied with the requirements of S. C. law; the unusual location of the summons failed to fulfill the essential purpose of clearly placing respondent on notice of the time period in which to answer and constituted excusable neglect.

The order of the trial court permitting respondent to file an answer is affirmed.

Affirmed'.

Lewis, C. J., and Littlejohn, Gregory and Harwell, JJ-, concur.

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

Related

Mitchell Supply Co. v. Gaffney
375 S.E.2d 321 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1988)
Tyson v. United Food Services, Inc.
346 S.E.2d 27 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1986)
H & H Glass Co., Inc. v. Wynne
346 S.E.2d 523 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 S.E.2d 108, 276 S.C. 571, 1981 S.C. LEXIS 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-food-town-stores-inc-sc-1981.