Background
Bernard Jackson, a South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC) inmate, filed an ALC appeal disputing DOC’s handling of his prison wages. Jackson argued he was entitled to have ten percent of his earnings deposited into a long-term savings account under section 24-3-40(A)(4) of the South Carolina Code, which provides that “[t]en percent must be available to the inmate during his incarceration for the purchase of incidentals.” DOC disputed his interpretation of the statute.
While the appeal was pending in the ALC, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement. The agreement provided that a specified sum — from which required statutory deductions for victim restitution and room and board had already been subtracted — would be deposited into Jackson’s E.H. Cooper Inmate Account, and that “[n]o additional funds will be . . . placed into long-term savings.” A stipulation of dismissal was filed with the ALC. Jackson then filed an objection to the stipulation of dismissal. The ALC dismissed the appeal based on the stipulation, and Jackson appealed, contending he was still entitled to the 10% long-term savings deposit notwithstanding the settlement agreement.
The Court’s Holding
Affirmed. The Court of Appeals held the ALC correctly dismissed the appeal pursuant to the stipulation of dismissal.
Rule 43(k) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “no agreement between counsel affecting the proceedings in an action shall be binding unless reduced to the form of a consent order or written stipulation signed by counsel and entered in the record, or unless made in open court and noted upon the record, or reduced to writing and signed by the parties and their counsel.” Under Motley v. Williams, 374 S.C. 107 (Ct. App. 2007), “[t]o be enforceable, settlement agreements must either be entered into the court’s record or acknowledged in open court and placed upon the record.” The rule is “intended to prevent disputes as to the existence and terms of agreements regarding pending litigation.” Ashfort Corp. v. Palmetto Constr. Grp., Inc., 318 S.C. 492 (1995).
Here, the parties had entered into a written agreement and filed a stipulation of dismissal with the ALC — satisfying Rule 43(k)’s requirements. Stipulations, once properly made, are binding on the parties. Kirkland v. Allcraft Steel Co., 329 S.C. 389 (1998). Jackson’s subsequent objection to the stipulation did not undo the binding agreement. The ALC’s dismissal pursuant to the stipulation was proper.
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner who enters into a written settlement agreement with DOC and whose counsel signs a stipulation of dismissal is bound by the settlement’s terms, including provisions that limit his statutory rights going forward. Post-signing objections do not unravel a properly executed Rule 43(k) agreement.
- Rule 43(k) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure requires settlement agreements to be in a form that prevents later disputes about their existence and terms — either a signed written agreement, a consent order, or an on-the-record court acknowledgment. Informal or oral agreements during litigation do not bind the parties until one of these formalities is satisfied.
- Section 24-3-40(A)(4)’s requirement that ten percent of prisoner wages be available in a long-term savings account is a statutory obligation that can be waived — or modified — in a settlement agreement with DOC. A properly executed written agreement that expressly addresses the long-term savings allocation controls over the default statutory provision.
- Once a stipulation of dismissal is filed with the ALC and the requirements of Rule 43(k) are met, the dismissal is effective. An inmate’s subsequent objection to the stipulation does not prevent the ALC from entering dismissal based on it.
Why It Matters
Jackson v. SCDC is a practical illustration of Rule 43(k)’s binding effect in prison wage disputes. Pro se and represented inmates who settle administrative appeals with DOC must understand that signing a written agreement and a stipulation of dismissal is final — the agreement’s terms, including limitations on future statutory claims, are enforceable regardless of subsequent regrets. Inmates and counsel should carefully review the long-term savings and wage deduction provisions of any proposed settlement before signing, as the court will hold them to the written terms.
More broadly, the case confirms that South Carolina’s courts — including the ALC — apply Rule 43(k) in administrative proceedings to enforce settlement agreements that satisfy the rule’s formality requirements. The policy rationale is clear: certainty in the resolution of pending disputes requires that agreements once properly memorialized not be reopened by one party’s change of mind.