Belcher v. Davis

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Scott A. Belcher,       
Respondent,

v.

Rebecca J. Davis,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Pickens County

A. Victor Rawl, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-009

Submitted December 10, 2002 – Filed
January 6, 2003   

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Marcus Kirk McGarr, of Greenville; for Appellant.

Andrew C. Barr, of Greenville; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  This civil case originated
in magistrate’s court.  The magistrate granted Belcher’s motion to quash discovery
subpoenas issued by Davis to third-party medical providers.  Davis appealed
to the circuit court.  The circuit court concluded it had subject matter jurisdiction
over the appeal and affirmed the magistrate’s order.  Davis appeals.  We reverse
the order of the circuit court based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and remand the case to the magistrate’s court.

Discussion

Belcher and Davis were involved in an automobile
accident.  Belcher sued Davis in magistrate’s court.  Davis’s counsel issued
discovery subpoenas to eight third-party medical providers to obtain medical
records concerning Belcher.  Belcher’s counsel filed a motion in magistrate’s
court to quash the subpoenas based upon Rule 13 of the Rules of Practice in
Magistrate’s Court.  After a hearing, the magistrate granted the motion to quash. 
Davis appealed to the circuit court.
[1]  

Pursuant to South Carolina Code section 18-7-10,
[2] an appeal from a “judgment” of the magistrate’s court is to the circuit
court of the county where the judgment was rendered.  “A judgment represents
a judicial declaration that a judgment debtor is personally indebted to a judgment
creditor for a sum of money.” [3]

In this case, the magistrate’s discovery order
is not a judgment.  The circuit court, therefore, lacked subject matter jurisdiction
under section 18-7-10 to consider the appeal.  Lack of subject matter jurisdiction
may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal.
[4]   Moreover, discovery orders are generally not immediately appealable. [5]

Because the circuit court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to consider the appeal, the order of the circuit court is REVERSED
and the case is REMANDED to the magistrate’s court.

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and SHULER,
JJ., concur.

[1]   Davis argues that Rule 13 of
the Rules of the Magistrate’s Court does not prohibit a party from issuing
subpoenas to third-party medical providers for medical records.  Davis argues
that Rule 45, SCRCP, is applicable and that due process should allow for discovery
of this kind as the evidence goes to an issue concerning liability and damages.

An article in the most recent issue of South Carolina
Lawyer addresses this topic.  J. Craig Smith, Subpoenas in Magistrate
Courts: It Is Time To Simplify the Rules, South Carolina Lawyer, Nov.
2002, at 11.  Additionally, a S.C. Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion, concerning
violating the Rules of Professional Conduct, addresses this issue in part.
S.C. Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion, Op. No. 00-06 (Feb. 2000).

[2]   S.C. Code Ann. §18-7-10 (1985).

[3]   LaRosa v. Johnston, 328 S.C. 293, 296,
493 S.E.2d 100, 101 (Ct. App. 1997) (citing Wells v. Sutton, 299 S.C.
19, 22, 382 S.E.2d 14, 16 (Ct. App. 1989)).

[4]   Bardoon Props., NV v. Eidolon Corp., 326
S.C. 166, 168-169, 485 S.E.2d 371, 372 (1997). 

[5]   Hamm v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 312 S.C.
238, 241, 439 S.E.2d 852, 853 (1994).