Opinion ID: 1240570
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: verified complaint

Text: Petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondents' verified complaint should have been allowed by the trial court as a substitute for an affidavit. Discussing this novel issue, the Court of Appeals stated the following: Although our courts have not specifically addressed whether a verified complaint is the equivalent of an affidavit for purposes of summary judgment, Rule 56 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure is identical to its federal counterpart.... Federal courts addressing the issue have held that for the purposes of summary judgment, a verified complaint is the equivalent of an affidavit, provided that the verified complaint meets the requirements of Rule 56(e).... Likewise, numerous state courts have held that a verified complaint is the equivalent of an affidavit for summary judgment purposes.... Moreover, our review of South Carolina cases leads us to believe that such a result is consistent with South Carolina law.... Accordingly, we hold that for summary judgment purposes, a verified pleading is equivalent to an affidavit, provided it meets the requirements of Rule 56(e). Dawkins, 345 S.C. at 28-30, 545 S.E.2d at 518-19 (emphasis added, footnotes and citations omitted). We agree with the Court of Appeals' well-supported [5] conclusion that a verified complaint is an acceptable substitute for an affidavit at the summary judgment phase as long as the pleading satisfies Rule 56(e). Petitioners argue, however, that respondents' verified complaint did not meet the requirements of Rule 56(e). We agree. Rule 56(e) requires that affidavits: [1] shall be made on personal knowledge, [2] shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and [3] shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Rule 56(e), SCRCP. Few pleadings will satisfy these requirements, even when verified. 10B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 2738 (1998). In the instant case, both respondents verified the complaint as follows: PERSONALLY APPEARED before me, [respondent's name], who being duly sworn, deposes and says: that he is one of the Plaintiffs, in the foregoing action, that he has read the within Complaint, and that the facts are true of his own knowledge, except those matters and things therein alleged upon information and belief, and as to those, he believes them to be true. (Emphasis added). Allegations made upon information and belief do not meet the personal knowledge requirements of Rule 56(e). See, e.g., Sheinkopf v. Stone, 927 F.2d 1259 (1st Cir.1991); Fowler v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 343 F.2d 150 (5th Cir.1965); Seay v. Allstate Ins. Co., 59 N.C.App. 220, 296 S.E.2d 30 (1982). Likewise, because of the abundance of conclusory allegations found in respondents' verified complaint, it simply is not an appropriate substitute for an affidavit. See Sheinkopf, supra ; Fowler, supra ; see also Wright, Miller & Kane, § 2738 (ultimate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law, as well as statements made on ... `information and belief,' cannot be utilized on a summary-judgment motion). In sum, we find the Court of Appeals correctly held that a verified pleading may substitute for an affidavit at the summary judgment phase; however, it erred in finding that respondents' verified complaint met Rule 56(e)'s requirements. Id. Accordingly, the trial court appropriately refused to accept respondents' verified complaint as an affidavit for purposes of summary judgment.