S.c. R. Civ. P. 17
This Rule 17(a) is current Federal Rule 17(a). The first sentence and the first clause of the second sentence are substantially the same as Code §§15-5-70 and 80. The Federal Rule adds to those who may sue in the name of others, “guardian” and “bailee.” Those listed in the rule are considered illustrative and do not mean that others may not also fall into the category of those who can sue in the name of another. The last clause of the second sentence permits an action for the use or benefit of another to be brought in the name of the State. This is obviously needed but not provided for in §§15-5-70 and 80. The last sentence of the rule is intended to prevent forfeiture in those cases in which the determination of the proper party to sue is difficult or when there has been an honest mistake. This provision may change existing State law, because precedents hold that lack of the proper party is jurisdictional. Hodges v. Lake Summit Co., 155 S.C. 436, 152 S.E. 658 (1928); Wilson v. Gibbes Machine Co., 189 S.C. 426, 1 S.E.2d 490 (1938). Therefore, the filing of the suit might not bar the applicable statute of limitations, absent this provision.
This Rule 17(b) is the first sentence of the Federal Rule and includes the conflicts law of the State. The remainder of Federal Rule 17(b) provides for problems peculiar to Federal courts and is deleted. The rule does not attempt to define the capacities of parties to sue or be sued, but refers to the law that defines these matters.
This rule retains the principal provisions of Code §15-5-310. The last sentence, which does not appear in Federal Rule 17(c), retains the provisions in Code §15-5-320 as to guardians ad litem for imprisoned persons. The Rule narrows existing practice by providing for a guardian ad litem only when the person is imprisoned outside the State. Thus in the most common civil cases involving prisoners, post-conviction relief proceedings, a guardian would not be required for an in-state prisoner who is normally represented by appointed or retained counsel; but the court has the discretion to appoint a guardian for an in-state prisoner.
This provision does not appear in the Federal Rule. It is a restatement of Code §§15-5-310 to 380. These provisions were added to Rule 17 as the Federal Rule refers to the State law on this subject.
This Rule 17(d)(1) is drawn principally from Code §15-5-310 and Code §15-5-360 dealing with the appointment of guardians for minors and incompetent persons.
Note to 1986 Amendment:
This amendment permits a guardian ad litem to be appointed before the action is filed.
This Rule 17(d)(2) is drawn from Circuit Court Rule 6 with minor textual changes.
This Rule 17(d)(3) is drawn from Code §15-5-330 with minor textual changes.
This Rule 17(d)(4) is drawn from Code §15-5-370 with minor textual changes.
This Rule 17(d)(5) is drawn from Code §15-5-360.
This Rule 17(d)(6) provides for the appointment of a guardian upon motion of any other party, if an application for the appointment has not been received within 30 days after the service of summons, and is similar language to Code §§15-5-340, 360 and 370. The provision incorporates the thirty day period for answering a complaint contained in Circuit Court Rule 102.
This Rule 17(d)(7) is similar to Code §15-5-350, and states the obvious proposition that the court has the authority to protect the interest of the individuals for whom guardians have not been appointed.
This Rule 17(e) is added to supplement Rule 10(a) as to unknown parties, providing for the use of fictitious names similar to Code §15-13-70. Actions against unknown parties are peculiar to State Court jurisdiction and this section is added to the Federal Rule to complete the procedure.
This Rule 17(f) does not appear in the Federal Rules. It is drawn from the first paragraph of present Circuit Court Rule 54. The intent of the provision is to insure that the debtors of the estate may reach the proceeds from the partition of the real estate which technically becomes the property of the heirs or beneficiaries upon the death of the deceased. Requiring the legal representative to be joined in all cases, except discharge or where there are no debts, serves this purpose. This Rule is not jurisdictional and partition will occur even if the legal representatives are not named or none has been appointed. See Smith v. Hawkins, 254 S.C. 423, 175 S.E.2d 824 (1970). The provisions of the second paragraph of Circuit Court Rule 54 and all of Circuit Court Rule 55, as to actions for partition of separate tracts, are contained in Rule 53 of these Rules. See also Rule 71 of these Rules for procedure on foreclosure and partition actions.