Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Litigation Executive Session topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Beaufort County Council declines settlement offer in Munday/Devine detention center suit, will proceed to trial
Summary
After an executive session, Beaufort County Council authorized county attorneys to decline a settlement offer in the case of Cheryl Munday and Margaret Devine v. Beaufort County Detention Center and to proceed to trial. The motion passed with one vote against.
Beaufort County Council voted after an executive session to decline a settlement offer in the case of Cheryl Munday and Margaret Devine v. Beaufort County Detention Center and authorized county counsel to proceed to trial.
The motion came immediately after the council returned from executive session. Councilman Dawson moved that “county council authorize the deputy county attorney and our outside counsel for the case of Cheryl Munday and Margaret Devine, verse Beaufort County to decline the plaintiff's offer of compromise and settlement dated 02/05/2025 at this time and proceed to trial in the case.” Ms. Sarah, the council clerk, confirmed the vote and said the motion passed with one vote against.
The executive session had been held under provisions of the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act addressing receipt of legal advice relating to pending litigation, including “South Carolina Code section 30-4-78” and “South Carolina Code section 30-4-70(a)(2),” the chair noted before the council recessed. The agenda item named three matters discussed in executive session: Cheryl N. Munday and Margaret Devine v. Beaufort County Detention Center; Chloe and Patricia Gosh v. South Carolina DOT; and Beaufort County v. Broad Creek Development LLC.
Council did not provide details in open session about the terms of the plaintiff’s February 5, 2025 offer or attorneys’ legal analysis that led to the recommendation to reject it. The motion recorded only directional authority for county counsel to decline the offer and to take the case to trial. No settlement amount or additional terms were disclosed on the public record during the meeting.
The vote was taken by a show of hands; the clerk recorded that the motion passed with one vote against. Council did not identify the dissenting member on the public record during that roll call.
The council adjourned the caucus afterward and resumed the regular meeting schedule.
