Court Opinion

ID: 9594258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:28:31.230822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:31.320439
License: Public Domain

ORDER ON REHEARING
We granted rehearing to consider the Livingstons’ contention that we reversed the judgment of the circuit court on a ground not raised by the appellant’s exceptions.
As a general rule, this Court will not reverse the judgment of the circuit court, even if it is erroneous, on a ground not raised by a properly framed exception. Rosamond Enterprises, Inc. v. McGranahan, 278 S. C. 512, 299 S. E. (2d) 337 (1983); Mackey v. Kerr-McGee Chemical Co., 280 S. C. 265, 312 S. E. (2d) 565 (S. C. App. 1984). If in examining an exception to discover whether it has been framed in violation of the rules, we ascertain that it clearly embraces a meritorious assignment of prejudicial error, we ordinarily will waive the breach of the rules and consider the exception. Allen *464v. Hatchett, 242 S. C. 458, 131 S. E. (2d) 516 (1963); Baker v. Weaver, 279 S. C. 479, 309 S. E. (2d) 770 (S. C. App. 1983). The standard which guides us is whether, despite the improperly framed exception, the issue sought to be raised is reasonably clear to this Court and the adverse party. Sandel v. Cousins, 266 S. C. 19, 221 S. E. (2d) 111 (1975); see Baker v. Weaver, supra.
In this case, the Livingstons argue not that an exception was framed in violation of the rules, but that the ground on which the judgment was reversed is not raised at all by the exceptions. We think the Livingstons read the exceptions too narrowly in making this assertion.
Among other grounds for reversal, Bartles stated the following exceptions:
5. The Trial Judge committed error in finding that the debt of Appellant was not adequately established, the error being that the debt was established by the Decree of Foreclosure and Order Confirming Sale and was res judicata.
6. The Trial Judge committed error in denying Appellant a deficiency judgement based upon failure to establish the debt, the error being that the appropriate remedy would be judgement [sic] for the minimum debt clearly established and not forfeiture of the entire debt.
When this Court comes to construe an exception, it will make its construction as liberal as the language will allow, in order to decide the question involved, unless it is satisfied that the statement has misled the respondent to his prejudice. McMahan v. Walhalla Light & Power Co., 102 S. C. 57, 86 S. E. 194 (1915) (dictum); Zorn v. Crawford, 252 S. C. 127, 165 S. E. (2d) 640 (1969). The Court is concerned with the substance of the appeal, not technical differences in the issues raised by the exceptions. Mishoe v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co., 186 S. C. 402, 197 S. E. 97 (1938).
Although the quoted exceptions do not state in so many words that the trial judge had no discretion to deny a deficiency judgment after the debt had been established and the sale judicially confirmed, we think they fairly comprehend that issue. The quoted exceptions and the arguments under them in Bartles’s brief put the Livingstons on notice that Bartles was claiming the judge could not cut off his *465right to a deficiency judgment once the debt had been established. That was the essential point of Bartles’s appeal. It was also the ground on which we reversed the judgment.
While this Court is generally confined to the issues raised by the exceptions, it is not limited to the reasoning of the parties or the trial court in addressing those issues. Inevitably in an adversary process, the parties will at times stretch or distort arguments, facts, and rules of law in pursuit of a desired outcome. If we were bound to conform our opinions strictly to the arguments and reasoning of the parties, the result would often be bad decisional law. Of necessity, therefore, we must have the freedom to depart from the particular arguments urged on us by adversary parties when deciding the issues raised by an appeal. To confine ourselves solely to the reasoning of the parties would be an abdication of our duty as judges to decide cases independently and impartially in accordance with the law.
We have fully considered the other arguments raised by the Livingstons on rehearing. As to those issues, we adhere to the views expressed in our original opinion.
The remittitur shall be sent down ten days from the filing of this order.