Breakfield v. Woods

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

Robert H. Breakfield, as attorney-in-fact, Respondent,

v.

Mell Woods, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212318

Appeal From Chester County
Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-076
Submitted January 1, 2014 – Filed February 26, 2014

AFFIRMED

Mell Woods, of Lancaster, pro se.

B. Michael Brackett, of Moses & Brackett, PC, of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Mell Woods appeals the circuit court's order, which affirmed the
magistrate's court. Woods argues (1) the magistrate's court erred in proceeding
with the summary ejectment action when Woods pled the defense of questionable
title; (2) the rule to show cause notice provisions of sections 27-37-20 and
27-37-40 of the South Carolina Code (2007) are unconstitutional because they do
not provide a tenant thirty days to file an answer; and (3) it is unconstitutional to
have two classes of litigants in South Carolina—landlords and tenants. We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the magistrate's court erred in proceeding with the ejectment
action when Woods pled the defense of questionable title: Metro. Life Ins. Co. v.
Stuckey, 194 S.C. 469, 475, 10 S.E.2d 3, 5-6 (1940) ("[A] tenant cannot oust the
magistrate of jurisdiction in [summary ejectment proceedings] . . . by the assertion
of a superior title in himself . . . ."); id. at 475-76, 10 S.E.2d at 6 ("Otherwise any
tenant, by merely denying the landlord's title or by asserting superior title in
himself or in another, could oust the magistrate of jurisdiction and frustrate the
plain and salutary object of the statute.").

2. As to whether the rule to show cause notice provisions of sections 27-37-20 and
27-37-40 are unconstitutional because they do not provide a tenant thirty days to
file an answer: Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 569, 549 S.E.2d 591, 597 (2001)
("[An appellate c]ourt has a limited scope of review in cases involving a
constitutional challenge to a statute because all statutes are presumed constitutional
and, if possible, will be construed to render them valid."); In re Justin B., 405 S.C.
391, 395, 747 S.E.2d 774, 776 (2013) ("A statute will not be declared
unconstitutional unless its repugnance to the constitution is clear beyond a
reasonable doubt."); id. ("The party challenging the statute's constitutionality bears
the burden of proof.").

3. As to whether it is unconstitutional to have two classes of litigants in South
Carolina—landlords and tenants: A & I, Inc. v. Gore, 366 S.C. 233, 242, 621
S.E.2d 383, 387 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Issues not raised to or ruled upon by the lower
court are not preserved for appellate review.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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