TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Foggie

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES v. Johnny C. FOGGIE

S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Foggie, 245 S.E.2d 423 (S.C. 1978)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of South Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 13, 1978
Docket
No. 20711
Judges
Gregory, Lewis, Littlejohn, Ness, Rhodes
Citations
245 S.E.2d 423271 S.C. 1091978 S.C. LEXIS 282

Opinion of the Court — Lewis

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Lewis, Chief Justice:

This appeal is from an order of the lower court dismissing appellant’s petition as assignee, of the mother’s rights, to determine paternity of, and to establish a support obligation for, a minor child born out of wedlock. The contention of appellant was that respondent was' the father of the child. The lower court dismissed the petition on the ground that an alleged prior action to determine paternity was res judicata and barred the present action. We reverse.

While the record shows that the mother of the child, whose rights were assigned to appellant, brought a paternity and support action against respondent in 1970, the only evidence of the hearing or disposition of that action consisted of the minutes of the court, dated March 11, 1970, which stated: “Dismissed — long gone bastardy case $10.00 plus cost.” This was the sole record upon which the lower court based its finding of res judicata.

The plea of res judicata is an affirmative defense and must be pled. Connell v. Connell, 249 S. C. 162, 153 S. E. (2d) 396 .

The application of res judicata in this case must fail for two reasons. First, the respondent failed to plead the defense and the issue was, therefore, not before the Court; second, even if the plea is deemed raised, the foregoing notation on the minutes of the court in the prior action was insufficient to establish the existence or character of the judgment in the prior action, or its legal effect.

The judgment is accordingly reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Littlejohn, Ness, Rhodes and Gregory, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1979: 11989: 119792026peak 1979 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Shelby J.S. v. George L.H.381 S.E.2d 269 (W. Va. 1989)
  2. South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Thompson257 S.E.2d 747 (S.C. 1979)

Most recent

  1. Shelby J.S. v. George L.H.381 S.E.2d 269 (W. Va. 1989)
  2. South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Thompson257 S.E.2d 747 (S.C. 1979)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Connell v. Connell, 153 S.E.2d 396 (S.C. 1967) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list