Wham factors in South Carolina

2022See Sundown Operating Co., 383 S.C. at 607-08 , 681 S.E.2d at 888 ("Once a party has put forth a satisfactory explanation for the default, the trial court must also consider [the Wham factors, which include:] (1) the timing of the motion for relief; (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense; and (3) the degree of prejudice to the plaintiff if relief is granted."); Campbell v. City of N. Charleston, 431 S.C. 454 , 462 n.5, 848 S.E.2d 788 , 793 n.5 (Ct. App. 2020) (concluding the court did not need to address the Wham factors because the City failed to put forth a satisfactory explanat

2022See Sundown Operating Co., 383 S.C. at 607-08 , 681 S.E.2d at 888 ("Once a party has put forth a satisfactory explanation for the default, the trial court must also consider [the Wham factors, which include:] (1) the timing of the motion for relief; (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense; and (3) the degree of prejudice to the plaintiff if relief is granted."); Campbell v. City of N. Charleston, 431 S.C. 454 , 462 n.5, 848 S.E.2d 788 , 793 n.5 (Ct. App. 2020) (concluding the court did not need to address the Wham factors because the City failed to put forth a satisfactory explanat

2020See Sundown Operating Co., 383 S.C. at 607 , 681 S.E.2d at 888 (providing that "[o]nce a party has put forth a satisfactory explanation for the default, the trial court must also consider" the Wham factors (emphasis added)); see also Wham, 298 S.C. at 465 , 381 S.E.2d at 501-02 .

2020See Sundown Operating Co., 383 S.C. at 607 , 681 S.E.2d at 888 (providing that "[o]nce a party has put forth a satisfactory explanation for the default, the trial court must also consider" the Wham factors (emphasis added)); see also Wham, 298 S.C. at 465 , 381 S.E.2d at 501-02 .

2022See Sundown Operating Co., 383 S.C. at 607-08 , 681 S.E.2d at 888 ("Once a party has put forth a satisfactory explanation for the default, the trial court must also consider [the Wham factors, which include:] (1) the timing of the motion for relief; (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense; and (3) the degree of prejudice to the plaintiff if relief is granted."); Campbell v. City of N. Charleston, 431 S.C. 454 , 462 n.5, 848 S.E.2d 788 , 793 n.5 (Ct. App. 2020) (concluding the court did not need to address the Wham factors because the City failed to put forth a satisfactory explanat

2022See Sundown Operating Co., 383 S.C. at 607-08 , 681 S.E.2d at 888 ("Once a party has put forth a satisfactory explanation for the default, the trial court must also consider [the Wham factors, which include:] (1) the timing of the motion for relief; (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense; and (3) the degree of prejudice to the plaintiff if relief is granted."); Campbell v. City of N. Charleston, 431 S.C. 454 , 462 n.5, 848 S.E.2d 788 , 793 n.5 (Ct. App. 2020) (concluding the court did not need to address the Wham factors because the City failed to put forth a satisfactory explanat

2013See Sundown, 383 S.C. at 607-08 , 681 S.E.2d at 888 (holding a court need only consider the Wham factors “[o]nce a party has put forth a satisfactory explanation for the default”); Dixon v. Besco Eng’g, Inc., 320 S.C. 174, 179 , 463 S.E.2d 636, 639 (Ct.App.1995) (holding the trial court is not required to make specific findings of fact on the record for each Wham factor if the record contains sufficient evidentiary support for the finding of lack of good cause).

2013See Sundown, 383 S.C. at 607-08 , 681 S.E.2d at 888 (holding a court need only consider the Wham factors “[o]nce a party has put forth a satisfactory explanation for the default”); Dixon v. Besco Eng’g, Inc., 320 S.C. 174, 179 , 463 S.E.2d 636, 639 (Ct.App.1995) (holding the trial court is not required to make specific findings of fact on the record for each Wham factor if the record contains sufficient evidentiary support for the finding of lack of good cause).

2011Sheriff's Office, 381 S.C. 357 , 363 n. 1, 673 S.E.2d 423 , 426 n. 1 (2009) ("One rule of statutory construction allows the Court to deviate from a statute's plain language when the result would be so patently absurd that it is clear that the Legislature could not have intended such a result."). [28] The court went on to explain that the Wham factors come into play after the explanation is accepted by the court.

2011Sheriff's Office, 381 S.C. 357 , 363 n. 1, 673 S.E.2d 423 , 426 n. 1 (2009) ("One rule of statutory construction allows the Court to deviate from a statute's plain language when the result would be so patently absurd that it is clear that the Legislature could not have intended such a result."). [28] The court went on to explain that the Wham factors come into play after the explanation is accepted by the court.

1995See also Top Value Homes, Inc. v. Harden , — S.C. —, 460 S.E. (2d) 427 (Ct. App. 1995) (this court remanded an action subject to the good cause standard in which the master applied the excusable neglect standard, and directed the master to consider the Wham factors).

1995See also Top Value Homes, Inc. v. Harden , — S.C. —, 460 S.E. (2d) 427 (Ct. App. 1995) (this court remanded an action subject to the good cause standard in which the master applied the excusable neglect standard, and directed the master to consider the Wham factors).