unclean hands doctrine in South Carolina

2024First, the unclean hands doctrine "precludes a plaintiff from recovering in equity if he acted unfairly in a matter that is the subject of the litigation to the prejudice of the defendant." First Union Nat'l Bank of S.C. v. Soden, 333 S.C. 554, 568 , 511 S.E.2d 372, 379 (Ct. App. 1998).

2024First, the unclean hands doctrine "precludes a plaintiff from recovering in equity if he acted unfairly in a matter that is the subject of the litigation to the prejudice of the defendant." First Union Nat'l Bank of S.C. v. Soden, 333 S.C. 554, 568 , 511 S.E.2d 372, 379 (Ct. App. 1998).

2026Co., 324 S.C. 639, 644 , 478 S.E.2d 868, 871 (Ct. App. 1996))); Mullarkey v. Mullarkey, 397 S.C. 182, 191 , 723 S.E.2d 249, 254 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[R]elief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available only in cases of fraud upon the court or 'rare, special, exceptional or unusual circumstances that may warrant equitable relief, including accident or mistake.'" (quoting Mr. T v. Ms. T, 378 S.C. 127, 135 , 662 S.E.2d 413, 417 (Ct. App. 2008))); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011) ("The family court is a court of equity."); Wilson v. Gandis, 430 S.C. 282 , 308, 844 S.E.2d 631 , 645

2026Co., 324 S.C. 639, 644 , 478 S.E.2d 868, 871 (Ct. App. 1996))); Mullarkey v. Mullarkey, 397 S.C. 182, 191 , 723 S.E.2d 249, 254 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[R]elief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available only in cases of fraud upon the court or 'rare, special, exceptional or unusual circumstances that may warrant equitable relief, including accident or mistake.'" (quoting Mr. T v. Ms. T, 378 S.C. 127, 135 , 662 S.E.2d 413, 417 (Ct. App. 2008))); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011) ("The family court is a court of equity."); Wilson v. Gandis, 430 S.C. 282 , 308, 844 S.E.2d 631 , 645

2025See Straight v. Goss, 383 S.C. 180, 206 , 678 S.E.2d 443, 457 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The doctrine of unclean hands precludes a plaintiff from recovering in equity if he acted unfairly in a matter that is the subject of the litigation to the prejudice of the defendant." (quoting First Union Nat'l Bank of S.C. v. Soden, 333 S.C. 554, 568 , 511 S.E.2d 372, 379 (Ct. App. 1998))); id. at 207, 678 S.E.2d at 457-58 ("He who comes into equity must come with clean hands.

2015The court found “the special referee did not err in holding the doctrine of unclean hands precluded [the minority shareholder] from recovering against the [majority shareholders].” Id.

2025It is a self-imposed ordinance that closes the door of the court of equity to one tainted with inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in which he seeks relief." (quoting Emery, 361 S.C. at 220 , 603 S.E.2d at 605 )); Williams v. Jeffcoat, 444 S.C. 224 , 236, 906 S.E.2d 588 , 594 (2024) ("For a party to succeed on an unclean hands defense, the conduct of the person sought to be barred from recovery under the doctrine 'need not necessarily have been of such a nature as to be punishable as a crime or as to justify legal proceedings of any character.'" (quoting 27A Am.

2025It is a self-imposed ordinance that closes the door of the court of equity to one tainted with inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in which he seeks relief." (quoting Emery, 361 S.C. at 220 , 603 S.E.2d at 605 )); Williams v. Jeffcoat, 444 S.C. 224 , 236, 906 S.E.2d 588 , 594 (2024) ("For a party to succeed on an unclean hands defense, the conduct of the person sought to be barred from recovery under the doctrine 'need not necessarily have been of such a nature as to be punishable as a crime or as to justify legal proceedings of any character.'" (quoting 27A Am.

2026Co., 324 S.C. 639, 644 , 478 S.E.2d 868, 871 (Ct. App. 1996))); Mullarkey v. Mullarkey, 397 S.C. 182, 191 , 723 S.E.2d 249, 254 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[R]elief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available only in cases of fraud upon the court or 'rare, special, exceptional or unusual circumstances that may warrant equitable relief, including accident or mistake.'" (quoting Mr. T v. Ms. T, 378 S.C. 127, 135 , 662 S.E.2d 413, 417 (Ct. App. 2008))); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011) ("The family court is a court of equity."); Wilson v. Gandis, 430 S.C. 282 , 308, 844 S.E.2d 631 , 645

2026Co., 324 S.C. 639, 644 , 478 S.E.2d 868, 871 (Ct. App. 1996))); Mullarkey v. Mullarkey, 397 S.C. 182, 191 , 723 S.E.2d 249, 254 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[R]elief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available only in cases of fraud upon the court or 'rare, special, exceptional or unusual circumstances that may warrant equitable relief, including accident or mistake.'" (quoting Mr. T v. Ms. T, 378 S.C. 127, 135 , 662 S.E.2d 413, 417 (Ct. App. 2008))); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011) ("The family court is a court of equity."); Wilson v. Gandis, 430 S.C. 282 , 308, 844 S.E.2d 631 , 645

2026Co., 324 S.C. 639, 644 , 478 S.E.2d 868, 871 (Ct. App. 1996))); Mullarkey v. Mullarkey, 397 S.C. 182, 191 , 723 S.E.2d 249, 254 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[R]elief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available only in cases of fraud upon the court or 'rare, special, exceptional or unusual circumstances that may warrant equitable relief, including accident or mistake.'" (quoting Mr. T v. Ms. T, 378 S.C. 127, 135 , 662 S.E.2d 413, 417 (Ct. App. 2008))); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011) ("The family court is a court of equity."); Wilson v. Gandis, 430 S.C. 282 , 308, 844 S.E.2d 631 , 645

2026Co., 324 S.C. 639, 644 , 478 S.E.2d 868, 871 (Ct. App. 1996))); Mullarkey v. Mullarkey, 397 S.C. 182, 191 , 723 S.E.2d 249, 254 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[R]elief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available only in cases of fraud upon the court or 'rare, special, exceptional or unusual circumstances that may warrant equitable relief, including accident or mistake.'" (quoting Mr. T v. Ms. T, 378 S.C. 127, 135 , 662 S.E.2d 413, 417 (Ct. App. 2008))); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011) ("The family court is a court of equity."); Wilson v. Gandis, 430 S.C. 282 , 308, 844 S.E.2d 631 , 645

2026Co., 324 S.C. 639, 644 , 478 S.E.2d 868, 871 (Ct. App. 1996))); Mullarkey v. Mullarkey, 397 S.C. 182, 191 , 723 S.E.2d 249, 254 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[R]elief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available only in cases of fraud upon the court or 'rare, special, exceptional or unusual circumstances that may warrant equitable relief, including accident or mistake.'" (quoting Mr. T v. Ms. T, 378 S.C. 127, 135 , 662 S.E.2d 413, 417 (Ct. App. 2008))); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011) ("The family court is a court of equity."); Wilson v. Gandis, 430 S.C. 282 , 308, 844 S.E.2d 631 , 645

2026Co., 324 S.C. 639, 644 , 478 S.E.2d 868, 871 (Ct. App. 1996))); Mullarkey v. Mullarkey, 397 S.C. 182, 191 , 723 S.E.2d 249, 254 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[R]elief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available only in cases of fraud upon the court or 'rare, special, exceptional or unusual circumstances that may warrant equitable relief, including accident or mistake.'" (quoting Mr. T v. Ms. T, 378 S.C. 127, 135 , 662 S.E.2d 413, 417 (Ct. App. 2008))); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011) ("The family court is a court of equity."); Wilson v. Gandis, 430 S.C. 282 , 308, 844 S.E.2d 631 , 645

2026Co., 324 S.C. 639, 644 , 478 S.E.2d 868, 871 (Ct. App. 1996))); Mullarkey v. Mullarkey, 397 S.C. 182, 191 , 723 S.E.2d 249, 254 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[R]elief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available only in cases of fraud upon the court or 'rare, special, exceptional or unusual circumstances that may warrant equitable relief, including accident or mistake.'" (quoting Mr. T v. Ms. T, 378 S.C. 127, 135 , 662 S.E.2d 413, 417 (Ct. App. 2008))); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011) ("The family court is a court of equity."); Wilson v. Gandis, 430 S.C. 282 , 308, 844 S.E.2d 631 , 645

2026Co., 324 S.C. 639, 644 , 478 S.E.2d 868, 871 (Ct. App. 1996))); Mullarkey v. Mullarkey, 397 S.C. 182, 191 , 723 S.E.2d 249, 254 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[R]elief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available only in cases of fraud upon the court or 'rare, special, exceptional or unusual circumstances that may warrant equitable relief, including accident or mistake.'" (quoting Mr. T v. Ms. T, 378 S.C. 127, 135 , 662 S.E.2d 413, 417 (Ct. App. 2008))); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386 , 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011) ("The family court is a court of equity."); Wilson v. Gandis, 430 S.C. 282 , 308, 844 S.E.2d 631 , 645

2018Aaron v. Mahl, 381 S.C. 585, 594 , 674 S.E.2d 482, 487 (2009) ("The doctrine of unclean hands 'precludes a plaintiff from recovering in equity if he acted unfairly in a matter that is the subject of the litigation to the prejudice of the defendant.'" (quoting Ingram v. Kasey's Assocs., 340 S.C. 98 , 111 n.2, 531 S.E.2d 287 , 294 n.2, (2000))); id. ("The equitable doctrine of unclean hands, however, has no application to an action at law."); see also Matter of Howard, 315 S.C. 356, 359, 362 , 434 S.E.2d 254, 256, 258 (1993) (finding petition for allowance of claims for deceased's unpaid balance

2018Aaron v. Mahl, 381 S.C. 585, 594 , 674 S.E.2d 482, 487 (2009) ("The doctrine of unclean hands 'precludes a plaintiff from recovering in equity if he acted unfairly in a matter that is the subject of the litigation to the prejudice of the defendant.'" (quoting Ingram v. Kasey's Assocs., 340 S.C. 98 , 111 n.2, 531 S.E.2d 287 , 294 n.2, (2000))); id. ("The equitable doctrine of unclean hands, however, has no application to an action at law."); see also Matter of Howard, 315 S.C. 356, 359, 362 , 434 S.E.2d 254, 256, 258 (1993) (finding petition for allowance of claims for deceased's unpaid balance

2018Aaron v. Mahl, 381 S.C. 585, 594 , 674 S.E.2d 482, 487 (2009) ("The doctrine of unclean hands 'precludes a plaintiff from recovering in equity if he acted unfairly in a matter that is the subject of the litigation to the prejudice of the defendant.'" (quoting Ingram v. Kasey's Assocs., 340 S.C. 98 , 111 n.2, 531 S.E.2d 287 , 294 n.2, (2000))); id. ("The equitable doctrine of unclean hands, however, has no application to an action at law."); see also Matter of Howard, 315 S.C. 356, 359, 362 , 434 S.E.2d 254, 256, 258 (1993) (finding petition for allowance of claims for deceased's unpaid balance

2018Aaron v. Mahl, 381 S.C. 585, 594 , 674 S.E.2d 482, 487 (2009) ("The doctrine of unclean hands 'precludes a plaintiff from recovering in equity if he acted unfairly in a matter that is the subject of the litigation to the prejudice of the defendant.'" (quoting Ingram v. Kasey's Assocs., 340 S.C. 98 , 111 n.2, 531 S.E.2d 287 , 294 n.2, (2000))); id. ("The equitable doctrine of unclean hands, however, has no application to an action at law."); see also Matter of Howard, 315 S.C. 356, 359, 362 , 434 S.E.2d 254, 256, 258 (1993) (finding petition for allowance of claims for deceased's unpaid balance

2013See Wogan v. Kunze, 379 S.C. 581, 585 , 666 S.E.2d 901, 903 (2008) (noting even if the “evidentiary facts are not disputed but the conclusions or inferences to be drawn from them are, summary judgment should be denied” (citation omitted)). 6 Finally, as an alternative, I would reverse and remand for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the matters raised.

2013See Wogan v. Kunze, 379 S.C. 581, 585 , 666 S.E.2d 901, 903 (2008) (noting even if the “evidentiary facts are not disputed but the conclusions or inferences to be drawn from them are, summary judgment should be denied” (citation omitted)). 6 Finally, as an alternative, I would reverse and remand for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the matters raised.

2011See Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Coffey , 389 S.C. 68, 74-76 , 698 S.E.2d 244, 247-48 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding the master properly granted Mrs. Coffey's motion for summary judgment in Wachovia's foreclosure action based on her assertion that the equitable doctrine of unclean hands barred Wachovia from seeking equitable relief where Wachovia's employees processed the home equity loan to Mrs. Coffey's husband without the supervision of an attorney and therefore committed the unauthorized practice of law).

2011See Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Coffey , 389 S.C. 68, 74-76 , 698 S.E.2d 244, 247-48 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding the master properly granted Mrs. Coffey's motion for summary judgment in Wachovia's foreclosure action based on her assertion that the equitable doctrine of unclean hands barred Wachovia from seeking equitable relief where Wachovia's employees processed the home equity loan to Mrs. Coffey's husband without the supervision of an attorney and therefore committed the unauthorized practice of law).

2009E.g., Holmes v. Henderson, 274 Ga. 8 , 549 S.E.2d 81 (2001); Ellwood v. Mid States Commodities, Inc., 404 N.W.2d 174, 184 (Iowa 1987).

2009E.g., Holmes v. Henderson, 274 Ga. 8 , 549 S.E.2d 81 (2001); Ellwood v. Mid States Commodities, Inc., 404 N.W.2d 174, 184 (Iowa 1987).

2001See Rock Hill Nat’l Bank v. Honeycutt, 289 S.C. 98, 104 , 344 S.E.2d 875, 879 (Ct.App.1986) (Because the theory of unclean hands was not pled or raised to trial judge it could not be raised on appeal.); see also Dye v. Gainey, 320 S.C. 65, 70 , 463 S.E.2d 97, 100 (Ct.App.1995) (Goolsby, J., concurring and dissenting) (“The majority in a footnote discounts Dye’s failure *378 to appeal the trial court’s reliance on the doctrine of unclean hands, implying this reliance was improper because Gainey had not yet filed a responsive pleading and never raised the doctrine as an affirmative defense.”); s

2001See Rock Hill Nat’l Bank v. Honeycutt, 289 S.C. 98, 104 , 344 S.E.2d 875, 879 (Ct.App.1986) (Because the theory of unclean hands was not pled or raised to trial judge it could not be raised on appeal.); see also Dye v. Gainey, 320 S.C. 65, 70 , 463 S.E.2d 97, 100 (Ct.App.1995) (Goolsby, J., concurring and dissenting) (“The majority in a footnote discounts Dye’s failure *378 to appeal the trial court’s reliance on the doctrine of unclean hands, implying this reliance was improper because Gainey had not yet filed a responsive pleading and never raised the doctrine as an affirmative defense.”); s

2001See Rock Hill Nat’l Bank v. Honeycutt, 289 S.C. 98, 104 , 344 S.E.2d 875, 879 (Ct.App.1986) (Because the theory of unclean hands was not pled or raised to trial judge it could not be raised on appeal.); see also Dye v. Gainey, 320 S.C. 65, 70 , 463 S.E.2d 97, 100 (Ct.App.1995) (Goolsby, J., concurring and dissenting) (“The majority in a footnote discounts Dye’s failure *378 to appeal the trial court’s reliance on the doctrine of unclean hands, implying this reliance was improper because Gainey had not yet filed a responsive pleading and never raised the doctrine as an affirmative defense.”); s

2001See Rock Hill Nat’l Bank v. Honeycutt, 289 S.C. 98, 104 , 344 S.E.2d 875, 879 (Ct.App.1986) (Because the theory of unclean hands was not pled or raised to trial judge it could not be raised on appeal.); see also Dye v. Gainey, 320 S.C. 65, 70 , 463 S.E.2d 97, 100 (Ct.App.1995) (Goolsby, J., concurring and dissenting) (“The majority in a footnote discounts Dye’s failure *378 to appeal the trial court’s reliance on the doctrine of unclean hands, implying this reliance was improper because Gainey had not yet filed a responsive pleading and never raised the doctrine as an affirmative defense.”); s