Opinion ID: 2389242
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Terms of the Parties' Agreement

Text: Petitioners argue Respondent failed to follow the terms of the parties' agreement to fix the amount of the judgment. Thus, its entry was void and the court's actions flowing from that entry are without jurisdiction. We disagree. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-35-360 (2005) states: Before a judgment by confession shall be entered a statement in writing must be made and signed by the defendant and verified by his oath to the following effect: (1) It must state the amount for which judgment may be entered and authorize the entry of judgment therefor; (2) If it be for the money due or to become due, it must state concisely the facts out of which it arose and must show that the sum confessed therefor is justly due or to become due; and (3) If it be for the purpose of securing the plaintiff against a contingent liability, it must state concisely the facts constituting the liability and must show that the sum confessed therefor does not exceed the liability. Rule 60(b)(4), SCRCP provides the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding if the judgment is void. The definition of `void' under the rule only encompasses judgments from courts which failed to provide proper due process, or judgments from courts which lacked subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction. McDaniel v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 324 S.C. 639, 644, 478 S.E.2d 868, 871 (Ct.App.1996) (citations omitted). Petitioners contend the lack of an affidavit from Respondent setting forth the exact amount due under the judgment renders the judgment void. [6] However, the language pertaining to the affidavit in the judgment is permissive and not mandatory. It states an affidavit setting forth the correct amount of the judgment may be submitted by Respondent. The judgment complies with the statutory requirements of section 15-35-360 because it was made in writing, signed by Petitioners, and verified by their oath. Moreover, the lack of an affidavit does not render the judgment void under Rule 60, SCRCP, because the absence of an affidavit has no bearing on the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. Hence, because the judgment satisfies section 15-35-360 and the submission of an affidavit was permissive and not mandatory, the court of appeals correctly held the judgment was not invalid for lack of an affidavit.