Court Opinion

ID: 9846534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:43:17.291905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:37.386780
License: Public Domain

Ness, Justice,
dissenting:
Failing to see the justification for remanding this case to the trial court, I dissent.
Section 15-13-230, Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976), requires service of the complaint within twenty days of a request therefor. Counsel for appellant made three un*581answered requests for the complaint over a seven month period before he moved to have the case dismissed. The majority would remand to determine whether or not the respondent is entitled to relief on the basis of § 15-13-90. I disagree.
There are two pre-requisites for relief under Code § 15-13-90: (1) excusable neglect; and (2) a meritorious claim or defense. Commercial Credit Corporation v. Knight, 272 S. C. 435, 248 S. E. (2d) 589 (1978); Lee v. Peek, 240 S. C. 203, 125 S. E. (2d) 353 (1962). Counsel for respondent’s only reasons for failing to serve the complaint until the morning of the hearing on the motion to dismiss were inexperience and the complexity of medical malpractice actions. These excuses are wholly insufficient to justify reopening a default judgment, see 12 S. C. Digest, Judgment, Key No. 143 (West 1952), and I believe they are equally insufficient to justify extending the time for serving the complaint. E. g., Solomon v. Perkins, 52 A. D. (2d) 753, 382 N. Y. S. (2d) 208 (1976) ; O’Halloran v. Eller, 43 A. D. (2d) 955, 352 N. Y. S. (2d) 216 (1974); Wilkening v. Fogarty, 338 N. Y. S. (2d) 985, 40 A. D. (2d) 1031 (1972). I would reverse and dismiss.