Mountain View Baptist Church v. Burdine

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Mountain View
Baptist Church, Appellant,

v.

Bobby Lee
Burdine, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County

John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-061

Submitted January 4, 2011 – Filed February
16, 2011   

REVERSED

 

Candy M. Kern-Fuller, of Easley, for
Appellant.

Kirby Mitchell, of Greenville, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Mountain
View Baptist Church (the Church) appeals a circuit court's holding a magistrate's
writ of ejectment against Bobby Lee Burdine was void.  We reverse and reinstate
the writ.[1]

In 1958, Burdine's parents
bought an unimproved lot of real property, but they mistakenly built and lived
in a house on a lot owned by another person.  In 1998, the Church bought the lot
on which the Burdines built their house.  Burdine's parents died in 2000, and Burdine
subsequently moved into the house, living in it until this action.  In 2008,
the Church filed an application to eject Burdine from the lot.  Burdine filed
an answer, asserting he owned the lot and the magistrate lacked subject matter
jurisdiction because title was in question. The answer also included a
promise Burdine would accept service of a summons and complaint for an
ejectment action in circuit court if the Church deposited those documents with
the magistrate within twenty days of Burdine's answer. 

The Church argues the circuit
court erred in holding the magistrate lacked subject matter jurisdiction to
issue the writ.  We agree and reverse for the reasons set forth below. 

"[I]ssues
relating to subject matter jurisdiction . . . should
be taken notice of by this court on our own motion."  Bunkum v. Manor
Props., 321 S.C. 95, 99-100, 467 S.E.2d 758, 761 (Ct. App. 1996).  Pursuant
to article V, section 1 of the South Carolina Constitution, the South Carolina
legislature has established the subject matter jurisdiction of magistrates in
ejectment proceedings through a series of statutes.  Section 22-3-20 of the
South Carolina Code (2007) provides, "No magistrate shall have cognizance
of a civil action . . . [w]hen the title to real property shall come
in question, except as provided in Article 11 of this chapter." 

Article 11 provides, "When the title to real property shall come in
question in an action brought in a court of a magistrate the defendant may
. . . set forth in his answer any matter showing that such title will
come in question."  S.C. Code. Ann. § 22-3-1110 (2007).  "At the time of answering the defendant shall deliver
to the magistrate a written undertaking, executed by at least one sufficient
surety and approved by the magistrate, to the effect" the defendant
would accept service of a summons and complaint for an ejectment action in
circuit court if the plaintiff deposited those documents with the magistrate
within twenty days of the defendant's answer.  S.C.
Code Ann. § 22-3-1120 (2007).  "If such
an undertaking be not delivered to the magistrate he shall have jurisdiction of
the cause . . . and the defendant shall be precluded, in his defense,
from drawing the title in question."  S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-1140 (2007). 

Here, the magistrate had
subject matter jurisdiction to hear the action.  Burdine did not comply with
the statutory provisions relating to the magistrate's subject matter
jurisdiction because Burdine's undertaking was not
executed by a surety.  Therefore, the circuit court erred in holding the
magistrate's writ of ejectment was void.

REVERSED.

HUFF and
LOCKEMY, JJ., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.