Which county’s venue rule controlled a South Carolina magistrate civil case when a statute and court rule differed?

Plain-English summary

The South Carolina Attorney General concluded that, where a magistrate-court filing rule conflicted with an applicable venue statute, the statute would probably prevail. Magistrate Court Rule 4 generally pointed to a county where at least one defendant resided, with a separate provision for corporations. The requester asked whether section 15-7-30(C), which specified venue options for a resident individual defendant in covered cases, controlled instead. The AG relied on the state constitution’s statement that court practice rules were “subject to the statutory law” and an earlier decision saying statutes override conflicting court rules.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did Rule 4 always decide where a magistrate civil case was filed? A: The AG said probably not when an applicable venue statute conflicted with it. The statute would likely control.

Q: What did Rule 4 generally require?
A: The opinion quoted it as allowing filing in an appropriate magistrate court in a county where at least one defendant resided, with a separate rule for corporations.

Q: Did the AG choose the proper county for a specific lawsuit? A: No. It answered the priority question between the rule and statute, contingent on the statute applying and actually conflicting.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion addressed Rule 4 and section 15-7-30(C), with Rule 2 providing a fallback where magistrate rules did not supply a procedure. It framed its answer conditionally: a conflict and statutory applicability had to exist. The AG also explained that an earlier opinion allowing an interpleader action in a county where one defendant resided did not foreclose a different result when section 15-7-30 applied.

Citations and references

• S.C. Code Ann.§ 15-7-30(C)
• Article V, Section 4 of the State Constitution

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-22-2006-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/06sept22-McCurdy.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY MCMASTER

ArroRNEY GENERAL

September 22, 2006

Robert L. McCurdy, Staff Attorney
South Carolina Court Administration
1015 Sumter Street, Suite 200
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Mr. Mccurdy:
In a letter to this office you questioned the proper county in which to file complaints in a magistrate's court.

Rule 4 of the Magistrate's Court Rules states that

l.

A civil action may be filed in the appropriate magistrate's court having territorial jurisdiction in the county in which at least one defendant resides, except that civil actions against corporations may be filed in any county where such corporation shall have or shalJ usually keep an office or agent for the transaction of its usual and customary business. Rule 2 of the Magistrate's Court Rules states that (a) If no procedure is provided by these rules, the court shall proceed in a manner consistent with the statutory law applicable to magistrates and with circuit court practice rules in like situations but not inconsistent with these rules. You also referenced S.C. Code Ann.§ 15-7-30(C) which states in part that: A civil action tried pursuant to this section against a resident individual defendant must be brought and tried in that county in which the: (1) defendant resides at the time the cause of action arose; or (2) most substantial part of the alleged act or omission giving rise to the cause of action occurred. You questioned whether in a particular situation where subsection (C) of Section 15-7-30 may be applicable, would its provisions control or would Rule 4 prevail.

Mr. Mccurdy
Page2
September 22, 2006

Article V, Section 4 of the State Constitution provides that
[t]he Supreme Court shall make rules governing the administration of all the courts of the State. Subject to the statutory law, the Supreme Court shall make rules governing the practice and procedure in all such courts.

I

I presume that Rule 4 of the Magistrate's Court Rules was promulgated pursuant to such authority. See: Greenville Housing Authority of the City of Greenville v. Massey, 281 S.C. 618, 316 S.E.2d 722 (Ct.App. 1984). A prior opinion of this office dated October 16, 1980 cited the decision of the State Supreme Court in State v. Cottingham et al., 224 S.C. 181, 77 S.E.2d 897 (1953) as to a conflict between statutory law and court rules. In Cottingham, the Court indicated that "(s]tatutes override rules of court, ifin conflict." 77 S.E.2d at 900. Such is consistent with Article V, Section 4 which indicates that the court rule-making authority is "subject to the statutory law." Consistent with such, in the opinion of this office, as to any conflict between Rule 4 of the Magistrate's Court Rules and Section 15-7-30, it appears that the statute should probably be considered as prevailing. You also cited a prior opinion of this office dated July 6, 2006 dealing with interpleader actions. The question had been raised as to the jurisdiction of a magistrate to hear an interpleader action when the defendant/buyer and defendant/seller are not located in the same county where the plaintiffi'realtor is located. The opinion referenced Rule 4 and concluded that the interpleader action " ... could be filed in the county in which at least one of the defendants reside." Consistent with the conclusions in this opinion, the provisions of Section 15-7-30 could be determined to be controlling where applicable. With kind regards, I am, Very truly yours,

&~/(µJ__
Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~(~

Robert D. C o o k - - Assistant Deputy Attorney General