Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State court official seeks end to 3-hour mandatory mediations, urges more time for post-trial motions
Summary
Chief Justice Kitchers told the South Carolina constitutional law subcommittee that proposed rule changes would remove a mandatory three-hour family-court mediation minimum and extend some post-trial filing deadlines from 10 to up to 20 days to account for instantaneous e-filing and reduce tactical 'gotcha' filings.
Chief Justice Kitchers told the South Carolina House Constitutional Law Subcommittee that two proposed rule changes submitted by the Supreme Court include removing a mandatory three‑hour minimum for family‑court mediations and extending several post‑trial deadlines to give attorneys more time to consult clients.
Kitchers said the American-style three‑hour mandate in the alternate dispute resolution rules produced inefficiencies: "So what do people do, sit around and look at each other? It just doesn't make any sense," he said, arguing mediators and parties should have flexibility to end sessions earlier or resume later when appropriate.
He described the second, more consequential change as an increase in time for several post‑trial motions (notably Rule 59 motions) from 10 days to a potential 20 days. "Moving to e‑filing, electronic notification, the notification is instantaneous...the 10 days, strangely enough, seems to come quicker," Kitchers said, adding that a longer window would provide a "little extra breathing room" and reduce premature or knee‑jerk filings.
The chief justice told the panel the ADR commission requested the mediation change and that the post‑trial extension is intended to reduce tactical gamesmanship and allow motions to be more fully developed.
Committee members responded favorably to the explanations and thanked the chief for appearing. Under the subcommittee's process, no immediate action was required on the rule proposals during the meeting.
The discussion does not itself change court rules; the proposed amendments were presented to the legislature as required under Article 5, Section 4(a) of the South Carolina Constitution and are subject to the General Assembly's review process.
