From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Steinert v. Lanter

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jan 23, 1985
325 S.E.2d 532 (S.C. 1985)

Summary

holding that S.C. Code § 15-21-10 is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed, and as such, does not provide for recovery of attorney's fees

Summary of this case from Wachovia Securities, LLC v. Brand

Opinion

January 23, 1985.


ORDER

Jan. 23, 1985.

Prior to trial, the defendants made a statutory offer of compromise pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 15-21-10 (1976). Subsequently, plaintiff's mechanics' lien was vacated and its petition for foreclosure was dismissed. Plaintiff appealed.

The defendants have moved for an order remanding the matter to the trial court for an assessment of costs due them pursuant to the statute. We deny the motion. The proper time for the assessment of these costs is after a decision on the merits of the appeal. Should the defendants prevail in the appeal, they shall be entitled to an assessment of statutory costs in the trial court.

We note with concern that the defendants by their motion seek to recover attorney's fees as well as costs. At common law, each party bore its own costs, expenses, and attorney's fees. Section 15-21-10 is therefore in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed. The statute allows the recovery of costs, not costs and attorney's fees, and we so hold.

The motion to remand is denied. This order shall be published with the opinions of the Court.

It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Steinert v. Lanter

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jan 23, 1985
325 S.E.2d 532 (S.C. 1985)

holding that S.C. Code § 15-21-10 is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed, and as such, does not provide for recovery of attorney's fees

Summary of this case from Wachovia Securities, LLC v. Brand

holding a prior statute governing offers of judgment must be strictly construed to allow recovery of costs and not attorneys' fees

Summary of this case from Hueble v. S.C. Dep't of Natural Res.

holding statute allowing recovery of costs was in derogation of the common law and therefore must be strictly construed to allow only the recovery of costs and not attorney's fees

Summary of this case from Dowaliby v. Chambless

construing predecessor statute § 15-21-10

Summary of this case from Belton v. State
Case details for

Steinert v. Lanter

Case Details

Full title:Charles Samuel STEINERT, d/b/a/ Charles S. Steinert, P.E., Consulting…

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Jan 23, 1985

Citations

325 S.E.2d 532 (S.C. 1985)
325 S.E.2d 532

Citing Cases

Black v. Roche Biomedical Lab

Those procedures, now generally embraced in Rule 54(d) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-37-10 to -220, provide that a…

Wachovia Securities, LLC v. Brand

Therefore, it appears that the South Carolina legislature has abrogated, at least under this Title, the rule…