P & D of Gray Court v. Bailey

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals P & D of Gray Court, Inc. Respondent, v. Tony Bailey and Joan Bailey, Appellants. Appeal From Laurens County Thomas J. Thompson, Special Referee Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-557 Submitted July 15, 2003 – Filed September 26, 2003 REVERSED W. Reid Cox, Jr., of Laurens, for Respondent. Bryan C. Able, of Laurens, for Appellants. PER CURIAM: Tony Bailey and Joan Bailey appeal the denial of the motion to amend their answer. We reverse. [1] FACTS P & D of Gray Court, Inc. commenced this action against Tony Bailey and Joan Bailey to evict and cancel the contract rights of the Baileys. In their answer, the Baileys set forth a defense of a general denial and did not assert any affirmative defenses. At the hearing, the Baileys, appearing pro se, defended on the basis of an alleged breach of contract by P & D of Gray Court. Counsel for P & D of Gray Court scheduled a supplemental hearing for the purpose of presenting evidence regarding the alleged breach of contract by P & D of Gray Court. At the supplemental hearing, P & D of Gray Court moved to supplement the record with additional testimony in response to the unpled allegation of breach of contract made by the Baileys at the previous hearing. The Baileys, now represented by counsel, moved to amend their answer. An Order was issued in which the judge denied both motions ruling, “Upon consideration of both motions, the Court is impelled to deny them both and proceed to determine the case based on the original pleadings and the testimony presented at the original hearing . . . .” Pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, the Baileys filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment in which the Baileys erroneously contended the court had granted their motion to amend their answer. The judge issued a Supplemental Order, finding the motions of both parties were still denied. LAW/ANALYSIS The Baileys argue the trial judge erred by denying the motion to amend their answer. We agree. Rule 15 (a) states, A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before or within 30 days after a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is required and the action has not been placed upon the trial roster, he may so amend it at any time within 30 days after it is served. Otherwise a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires and does not prejudice any other party. A motion to amend is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and the party opposing the motion has the burden of establishing prejudice. Harvey v. Strickland, 350 S.C. 303, 566 S.E.2d 529 (2002). Amendments to conform to the proof should be liberally allowed when no prejudice to the opposing party will result. Soil & Material Eng’rs, Inc. v. Folly Assoc., 293 S.C. 498, 361 S.E.2d 779 (Ct. App. 1987). Delay in seeking leave to amend pleadings, regardless of the length of the delay, will not ordinarily be held to bar an amendment in the absence of a finding of prejudice. Forrester v. Smith & Steele Builders, Inc., 295 S.C. 504, 508, 369 S.E.2d 156, 159 (Ct. App. 1988). In the absence of a proper reason, such as bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice, a denial of leave to amend is an abuse of discretion. Id. at 507, 369 S.E.2d at 158. The trial judge’s lack of findings in his Order as to the reason why he denied the motion to amend provides a “sufficient basis of reversing his decision.” Id. The judge did not indicate in his order why he denied the Bailey’s motion to amend. The record is void of any arguments by P & D of Gray Court that it would be prejudiced if the Bailey’s motion to amend was allowed. The judge, therefore, abused his discretion in denying the motion to amend. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the decision of the Special Referee is REVERSED. HEARN, C.J., CONNOR and ANDERSON, JJ., concur. [1] This case was decided without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.