South Carolina: Employee found not to be employed by South Carolina Judicial Department.

Link for opinion: http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.msbcollege.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/

In 387 S.C. 147 (S.C.2010), the South Carolina Supreme Court concluded that the employee was not employed by the South Carolina Judicial Department.

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s did not err in finding that SCJD was not the employee's employer. The suspension of the employee and a subsequent audit came about as the result of judicial disciplinary proceedings pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 14-11-15. Actions taken by SCJD in the course of such proceedings were not indicia of an employee/employer relationship. While court administration sent a letter to each county government calculating the master's salary using the statutory formula, S.C. Code Ann. § 14-11-30, that salary was determined by the formula, not by the SCJD. Neither S.C. Code Ann. § 14-1-90 nor S.C. Code Ann. § 14-27-70(1) imposed a duty on SCJD to supervise a master's bank accounts and/or audit books. S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-150 (Supp. 2008) placed the auditing duty on the county. Even if the statutes created such a duty, the lenders did not show that their claims would not be precluded by the public duty rule. The trial court did not err in finding that SCJD did not owe the lenders a fiduciary duty to protect the funds held in the employee's foreclosure account. S.C. Code Ann. § 14-11-310(Supp. 2008) anticipated that the funds would be held by the master.

This case teaches the importance that the lenders are aware of who they are lending money to and the importance of keeping track of the accounts they lend to.