Court Opinion

ID: 9764686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:36:01.660081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:00.465787
License: Public Domain

PIEPER, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately only to clarify for the bench and bar what I see as a continued misconception about the authority of magistrates to determine equitable defenses that may arise from time to time in matters otherwise properly -within their jurisdiction. Pursuant to section 22-3-10 of the South Carolina Code (2007), magistrates have concurrent civil jurisdiction “in all matters between landlord and tenant and the possession of land.... ” S.C.Code Ann. § 22-3-10(10) (2007). The State Constitution *55of 1868 provided “[t]hat justice may be administered in a uniform mode of pleading without distinction between law and equity,” thus abolishing the historical distinction between courts of law and courts of chancery. See S.C. Const. of 1868, art. V, § 8, reprinted in S.C.Code Vol. I (1922); see also Rule 2, SCRCP (“There shall be one form of action to be known as ‘civil action.’ ”). Despite the merger of courts of law and equity, magistrates were still constitutionally prohibited from deciding equitable cases until more than a century later. See S.C. Const. art. V, § 21 (1962), amended by S.C. Const. art. V, § 26 (1973) (“Magistrates shall have jurisdiction in such civil cases as the General Assembly may prescribe: Provided, such jurisdiction shall not extend ... to cases in chancery.”) (emphasis in original).
In 1973, the General Assembly ratified an amendment rewriting Article 5 of the South Carolina Constitution. See Act No. 132, 1973 S.C. Acts 161-166. The constitutional prohibition against magistrates deciding cases in equity was removed and replaced by a shortened provision entrusting magistrate court jurisdiction solely to the General Assembly. See S.C. Const. art. V, § 26 (“The General Assembly shall provide for [magistrates’] terms of office and their civil and criminal jurisdiction.”). Today, there are no longer any constitutional or statutory provisions that prohibit magistrates from deciding equitable defenses. Although I concur with the majority that we need not address the application of any equitable defenses, I merely wish to clarify that the magistrate had jurisdiction to consider United Energy’s equitable defenses because these defenses arose as part of the dispute between a landlord and a tenant, which is within the jurisdiction of the magistrate court pursuant to section 22-3-10. See S.C.Code Ann. § 22-3-10(10).
As the sixteen-time world heavyweight wrestling champion Ric Flair once said, “Space Mountain may be the oldest ride in the park, but it has the longest line.” The same holds true for equity. For justice to be rendered in cases properly before a magistrate, equitable and legal principles must “ride together” and be applied according to applicable established principles.