Journal of the House of Representatives
of the Second Session of the 110th General Assembly
of the State of South Carolina
being the Regular Session Beginning Tuesday, January 11, 1994

Page Finder Index
| Printed Page 6800, May 17 | Printed Page 6820, May 17 |
Printed Page 6810 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: I don't know.
SENATOR RUSSELL: We're out of Executive Session.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Okay.
SENATOR RUSSELL: You can leave if you like.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Mr. Clark has withdrawn and that only leaves Mr. Wyatt Thomas Saunders. Would you please come forward and take the oath, please, sir.
WYATT THOMAS SAUNDERS, JR., having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Have you had a chance a review your Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
MR. SAUNDERS: Yes, I have.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Is it correct? Does anything need clarification?
MR. SAUNDERS: There is one amendment to Number 13, my rating in Martindale-Hubbell is AV.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Is what?
MR. SAUNDERS: AV.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Would ya'll -- they'll make a note of that, yes, sir.
MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Is there any objection to making this Summary a part of the record of your sworn testimony?
MR. SAUNDERS: No, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: It shall be done at this point in the transcript.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. Wyatt Thomas Saunders, Jr.
Home Address: Business Address:
511 Academy Street 102 Church Street, P. O. Box 731
Laurens, SC 29360 Laurens, SC 29360

2. He was born in Forsyth County, North Carolina on September 20, 1942. He is presently 51 years old.

4. He was previously divorced on November 15, 1973; Wyatt Thomas Saunders, Jr. (moving party); Civil & Family Court, Laurens County; desertion for one year (grounds). He was also previously divorced on March 2, 1978; Kathleen Marek Saunders (moving

Printed Page 6811 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
party); Circuit Court, 12th Judicial Circuit; Florida, Sarasota County; marriage was irretrievably broken. He was married to Laura Holland Uzzell on July 3, 1978. He has three children: Laura McCall, age 14; Lillie Dupre, age 12; and Leigh Holland, age 12.

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended Millsaps College in Jackson, Mississippi, 1960-1962; transferred to Presbyterian College, Clinton, South Carolina, 1962-1965, B.A.; Erskine College in Due West, South Carolina, 1964, transferred from and to Presbyterian College; Wake Forest University, School of Law, 1965- 1968, J.D.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has complied with the CLE requirements by attending approved seminars and reporting annually on his attendance. The seminars have been on various subjects relating to his interests and intellectual needs.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
He has been in general practice in Laurens since 1968, always as a sole practitioner.

13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:AV

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - occasionally
State - frequently
Other - federal and state administrative agencies, often

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 40%
Criminal - 25%
Domestic - 35%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 20%
Non-Jury - 80%
Sole Counsel

Printed Page 6812 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a) James Calvin Davenport v. Reigel Textile Corporation (WCC File No: unknown). This was a worker's compensation claim for total permanent disability to a textile worker because of byssinosis or "cotton dust disease." The case was settled in December, 1981, for $47,500, and he believes it contributed substantially to improved working conditions in textile mills.
(b) Paul Kochen v. Spartan Grain and Feed, Inc. This was a civil action for damages to a cattle herd allegedly caused by molded feed or cattle feed which had allegedly become adulterated by aflatoxins. In December, 1984, the case was tried before a court and jury in Laurens County and resulted in a verdict for the Defendant. Nevertheless, he feels that the case had a significant effect on improving the quality of cattle feed and controls for molds and other potential carcinogens.
(c) The Estate of Noree Garlington v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad. This was a third-party suit against the railroad by an employee who was compensated by the State Fund for an on-the-job injury. The Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile driven by a co-worker. The Plaintiff alleged that the driver of the automobile and the railroad were negligent. The case is significant because the jury found the driver contributorily negligent but did not impute contributory negligence to the passenger and returned a verdict for the Plaintiff.
(d) Kerr v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 731 F2d 229 (1984). This is significant because it reaffirmed the South Carolina law that a policy of insurance is severable, and fraud for the claim of personal property loss will not forfeit the entire policy if there was no fraud in the claim for the loss of the structure. The case was tried before a court and jury in the United States District Court by the applicant. He was lead counsel in the appeal.
(e) Walton v. Stewart, 289 S.E.2d 403, 277 S.C. 436 (1982). This is significant because this case established that the abolition of parental immunity by the South Carolina Supreme Court in 1980 was prospective only.

Printed Page 6813 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
18. Five (5) civil appeals:
(a) Lurey v. City of Laurens, 217 S.E.2d 226, 265 S.C. 217 (1975).
(b) Garlington v. South Carolina Department of Mental Retardation, et al., 81-CP-30-182, wherein a consent order of dismissal was entered by acting Justice William Rhodes.
(c) Walton v. Stewart, 289 S.E.2d 403, 277 S.C. 436 (1982).
(d) Kerr v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 731 F.2d 229 (1984).
(e) Saluda Motor Lines, Inc. v. Crouch, S. C. App., 386 S.E.2d 290, 300 S. C. 43 (1989).
Domestic Appeals: One appeal was filed and remanded without a hearing. Rita M. Stewart v. John M. Stewart (1984), Case No. 83-DR-30-212. No other domestic appeals are presently recalled.

22. Public Office:
City Attorney, City of Laurens, 1972 to 1992; appointed Counsel to the Commission of Public Works, Laurens, South Carolina, 1993 to present, appointed

40. Contributions Made to Members of the General Assembly:
$1,000 to James Bryan, Senator from Laurens, toward his Congressional Campaign expenses

44. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Laurens County Bar Association (President, 1982); South Carolina Bar, Committee on Fee Disputes (1990 to present)

45. Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
The First United Methodist Church, Laurens, South Carolina; Laurens County Chamber of Commerce; Laurens Cotillion Club; Laurens Carolean Club; Laurens Supper Club; The Commerce Club, Greenville, South Carolina; Hejaz Shrine Temple, Greenville; Laurens Palmetto Lodge #19, AFM; Laurens County Shrine Club; Sherlock Holmes Society, Greenville, South Carolina

47. Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a) Leon Patterson, Chairman and CEO
The Palmetto Bank
P. O. Box 49, Laurens, SC 29360
984-4551

Printed Page 6814 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
(b) James M. Barrett, Chief of Police, City of Laurens, Retired
300 Owings Street, Laurens, SC 29360
984-6473
(c) Joe H. Kirby
State Farm Insurance
P. O. Box 14, Laurens, SC 29360
984-6538
(d) Coleman F. Smoak, Jr., General Manager
Laurens Commission of Public Works
P. O. Box 349, Laurens, SC 29360
984-0481
(e) Eben Taylor
109 Edgewood Drive, Laurens, SC 29360
984-6147

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports that no formal complaints have ever been filed against you. Records of the applicable law enforcement agencies: Laurens County Sheriff's Office are negative; Laurens City Police Department are negative; SLED and FBI records are negative. The Judgement Rolls of Laurens County are negative. Federal court records are negative.

No complaints or statements were received. No witnesses are present to testify. Do you wish to make a statement before we ask counsel to ask you questions.
MR. SAUNDERS: No, sir. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: All right.
MR. SAUNDERS - EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q. Good morning. Good afternoon, I guess it is now. I've lost track of time. From your Personal Data Questionnaire, it appears you've been practicing -- a practicing attorney since 1968 and I think that's, what, approximately 26 years; is that correct?
A. Almost.
Q. Almost. You've also always been a sole practitioner engaging in a general practice; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. What is your role on Bar Committee's Fee Dispute on -- Committee on Fee Disputes?
A. I've been involved in two resolutions as a committee member. And that's been my participation in that committee.
Q. And that's a committee that actually resolves disputes?
A. Yes.

Printed Page 6815 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
Q. Regarding fees being charged by an attorney?
A. (Witness nods in the affirmative).
Q. You reported 35 percent of your practice as domestic. On the average in a month, how many times do you appear in Family Court?
A. Seven.
Q. Seven?
A. Maybe ten.
Q. How much of your family court practice is as a guardian or an attorney for a guardian ad litem?
A. A percentage of 35 percent. Probably five to ten percent. And most of that, if not all of that, would be appointed.
Q. Please give the committee some indication of how much of your practice in Family Court is contested cases?
A. A third of it.
Q. About a third of it. And we're going to ask, and we do this of all candidates, going to ask a series of things
-- of the issues that would arise in the Family Court and if you would, if you would give me some indication of what your experience is in each of those areas. How much experience have you had handling cases involving matters of equitable distribution of marital property?
A. Extensive.
Q. Have you handled any cases concerning equitable distribution of marital assets which include equitable distribution of retirement funds?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that extensive as well?
A. Fairly. The Qualified Domestic Relations Orders have become fairly standard in the practice in order that they be accepted by the administrator of the retirement plan. That has come about in the last 10 to 12, 15 years, I would think, and I've handled a number of those cases.
Q. Have you had much experience handling child custody cases?
A. Yes.
Q. What about removal of children from parental care?
A. Most of those cases I have become involved with when DSS would institute the cases and I would either be appointed in one of those capacities as guardian or attorney for the guardian or on occasions somewhat rarely, I would be retained. Most of the time indirectly retained by perhaps the parents of the parent. The grandparents would come into play in that kind of case typically.
Q. Have you had any experience handling cases of delinquency?
A. Yes.
Printed Page 6816 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
Q. Is that substantial experience or just a case or two?
A. It is not substantial. By that, I mean that it's not ordinary and usual that a parent -- parents would obtain an attorney to represent a juvenile. There have been cases, numbers of cases where I have been retained to represent a juvenile, but it's not very common. I'd say maybe three times a year, twice a year or something like that.
Q. Have you had any experience handling abuse and neglect cases?
A. Yes. And I've been appointed on some of those cases.
Q. There are a lot of appointments in these areas, aren't there?
A. Yes.
Q. And I'm sure you must have handled some contested divorces without question, I'm not --
A. Numerous ones.
Q. Do you personally engage in any fund-raising activities for any of the organizations for which you're a member? You listed several on your Personal Data Questionnaire.
A. No, I don't.
Q. And do you understand the ethical obligations in that regard if you become a Family Court judge?
A. Yes.
Q. You list a Laurens Supper Club as one of the organizations you belong to in the last five years. Do you still belong to that supper club?
A. Yes.
Q. Are attorneys members of the supper club?
A. Yes.
Q. If you become a Family Court judge, what will be your practice about the Laurens Supper Club?
A. I would like to think that a judge would not remove himself from society and, therefore, become somewhat alienated from the real world. I would like to continue my activity socially, but I would be careful not to have any discussion about any matters involving the court.
Q. Would it make any difference to you if -- I guess that's a club where it rotates, the meals rotate among various members' homes, is that the case?
A. Either there or at some public place.
Q. Would it make any difference if one of the attorneys or the attorney whose home the meal -- who's hosting the meal has a case before you the next week or during that week?
A. It may. It would depend on the character of the case. I possibly would go anyway. In that particular club, we pay. It is not free. So when we do have a meeting, we ante up, so to speak. Everybody pays his
Printed Page 6817 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
fair share. It's not a hosted -- and you probably didn't mean it that way, but it's not a free meal, so to speak.
Q. No, sir. I did not understand that, so --
A. But I would tend not to discuss any matters of a legal nature. I tend not to do that anyway when I'm not working.
Q. In the area of work ethic, what's your workweek like now and how would you envision it if you're elected to the Family Court?
A. My workweek generally starts at or about 8:30 to 9:00 o'clock and generally ends at about 7:00 o'clock, 6:30 to 7:30. I generally do not take a lunch hour. I do not leave the building unless I'm going to court.

I would expect that for the convenience of the attorneys that I would go to the office, to the court office and look at my mail as I do now at 8:30 or 9:00 o'clock, but I wouldn't have anything before the court if it's not absolutely necessary before 9:30. It being my thought that most lawyers like to go to their office and attend to their business, answer some mail, perhaps look at the day's calendar before they have to be somewhere, so 9:00 o'clock is a little bit early for most people because of office work they have to do, so I would probably start the court business, 9:30 or so, lunch break and start back at 2:00 or 2:30.
Q. Have you given any thought about how you might organize court to run efficiently?
A. Some. I have -- as most attorneys have, I've seen courts that I thought could be run more efficient and I think that the conservation of judicial effort is very important at all, all levels and I think that would be important to try to make it run efficiently. As to the actual steps that one could take to achieve a more efficient court, I do not have a list to give you. But I would certainly make that a priority.
Q. And you touched on this a little bit, as a judge, how would you balance being courteous and humble and at the same time presenting yourself in a way that maintains the decorum of the courtroom?
A. I think both of those characteristics are important, courtesy and humility. And the balance of them, I think is a somewhat natural thing. One who is humble is of consequence naturally courteous, I would think. But at the same time, you can't -- one could go overboard in a judicial capacity in that way.

I would prefer for the court to move on and the business of the court to be handled in an expeditious manner. But at the same time, I would want to be fair and let every one have ample time to be heard. I would want to be courteous in allowing them to be heard, but I don't want to hear the same thing three or four times as some lawyers want to do. I

Printed Page 6818 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
would want to move on, but I would not want to be discourteous to anybody, either a witness or a litigant.
Q. How would you move things along?
A. When I personally felt that a point had been properly covered, I would ask that another subject be brought up.
Q. How would you implement the judicial canons about ex parte communications?
A. I've always been conscious of the dangers of ex parte communications with the court. I would frown upon anyone trying to discuss the case with me. I don't think it's necessary and I don't think it's a good on idea any front. I would refrain from doing that.
Q. How do you plan to produce your orders? Will you ask other attorneys to submit orders to you?
A. Probably. I don't think it would be possible to write all the orders myself. The numbers of cases that are being decided currently in the Family Courts would prohibit one's writing all the orders. I would foresee an outline stating the facts that I felt should be put in the order, but not limiting the attorney's saying that other factors maybe salient and need to be in the order, but I would list those in a letter that would go to both attorneys and the conclusions of law that I felt were important and the ultimate decision and I would ask one of the attorneys to draft the order and send it to the other attorney for his remarks, additions or whatever and then to me.

Once it came to me, if I felt that it was in proper form after studying and reading it and perhaps even reviewing any citations that were contained therein, I would execute the order. I would retain the right as most judges would, I think, absolutely to -- to tear it up and start all over again if I felt it was necessary.
Q. What do you consider to be the proper standard for recusal and would you bring that up yourself or wait for the attorneys to do that?
A. At first, I think that there will be times that if I'm elected, I will have to recuse myself from hearing the case. I'm from a small county and there will be people whom I know to such an extent that I won't feel comfortable hearing a case wherein they're involved and I would not hear it.

On other occasions, I may feel myself capable and qualified to hear that case, but recognize that someone before the court may have a question. In that case, I would make my feelings known that I have known this person, he's worked on my car or he's done whatever or however, I may feel the pressure toward recusal and if both parties agree that I should continue to hear the matter, then I should do that. I would do that.

Printed Page 6819 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
But if any party expressed any degree of concern about my impartiality, I would recuse myself.
Q. But you used the example of a mechanic who's worked on your car, is that a fairly realistic example for you of something that you have a personal relationship in that regard that you might bring it up?
A. I'm not particularly close friends with the mechanics who work on my car, but I might know them and I think that would be an important point if such a person or his wife or his child were to come before the court, and if I were aware of that relationship, I think it incumbent upon me to alert everyone to it. So that if -- and if I felt that it was such a relationship indeed that would disqualify me in my own mind, I would recuse myself. Otherwise, I would alert people to that relationship, so they can make that decision.
Q. Have you sought the pledge of a legislator prior to this screening?
A. I have not.
Q. Have you even if there was one conditioned upon you're further advancement through -- successfully through the screening process?
A. No.
Q. Have you asked or otherwise authorized any person to solicit a pledge on your behalf?
A. I have not.
Q. Do you know of any solicitations or pledges on your behalf?
A. None.
Q. Excluding travel expenses and room and board, have you or anyone else expended any funds on behalf of your candidacy?
A. I probably have 10 to 12 dollars in telephone calls, if you count coming down here and calling back to the office.
MR. ELLIOTT: That's all the question I have, Mr. Chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Does any member of the committee have a question to ask? Yes, sir.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR RUSSELL:
Q. Mr. Saunders, without being expansive, and you'll understand from the nature of the question I'm going to ask, you can be expansive, if you're going to be expansive, just say, "I don't want to answer it," because we have a lot of other people. Are the laws of the State of South Carolina as pertaining to our domestic court system, domestic system, gender biased in your opinion?
A. An example of gender bias does not come to mind off hand. There may be an example in your notes that I could discuss, but I can't think of one at the moment.
Q. Okay. That's good enough.

| Printed Page 6800, May 17 | Printed Page 6820, May 17 |
Page Finder Index