Please note that our new website has been designed for a minimum resolution of 1024 x 768. If you use a lower resolution (i.e. 800 x 600), you should use the printer friendly version to read the opinions.

The summary following each opinion is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what a particular opinion decides. The summary is not necessarily a full description of the issues discussed in an opinion.

Tony Fitzgerald Tolbert (Tolbert) and Tonesha Tolbert (collectively Appellants) appeal the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment to Zurich American Insurance Company in this declaratory judgment action to determine Appellants’ entitlement to Underinsured Motorist (UIM) Coverage. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

In this domestic action, James Scott Camp appeals the family court’s order requiring him to pay a portion of his son's college expenses. We find the appellant's Rule 59(e) motion was insufficient and failed to stay the time for appeal. Consequently, this appeal is untimely, and we dismiss.

Does a plat recorded when property is subdivided confer an easement to the subsequent grantees of the property to the extent the easement is delineated in the plat?

The jury entered a defense verdict for Mark Frasier in this motor vehicle accident case and specifically found Frasier experienced a sudden, unforeseeable incapacity to operate his vehicle. The record, which included medical testimony, supported this finding. Therefore, we affirm.

Anderson appeals his criminal conviction for first-degree burglary, asserting the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of an unauthenticated fingerprint card. We find the fingerprint card was properly authenticated and affirm.

This case involves the issue of insurance proceeds. Sandra Blanding (mortgagor) appeals the Master-in-Equity's determination that an insurance policy obtained by mortgagee provided excess coverage only and was not available to reduce Blanding's debt, and that the mortgagee is entitled to $49,495.14 due on Blanding's debt, prejudgment interest in the amount of $6,736.48, and $6,768.38 in attorneys' fees, for a total judgment of $63,000, the amount of insurance proceeds available from a policy obtained by Blanding.

In this litigation, Appellants contend the Circuit Court erred: (1) in ruling on the merits of the County’s appeal because this was an appeal from a judgment of acquittal, and the only issue the Circuit Court should have addressed was the motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the doctrine of Double Jeopardy; (2) in making a finding on appeal that “the Horry County Police Department acted reasonably, appropriately and in accordance with the Horry County Code of Ordinances in their activities at Thee Doll House on August 17, 2004,” because that issue was not properly before the Circuit Court for it to make such a finding and conclusion; (3) in finding “there is a legal justification for the County’s appeal and that, but for the timing of the Magistrate’s Ruling, the County may have prevailed,” because that issue was not properly before the Circuit Court for it to make such a finding and conclusion; and (4) as a matter of law in denying Appellants’ motion for payment of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act (the Act), S.C. Code Ann. § 15-36-10, because the appeal in this matter was reviewed as a civil proceeding before the Court of Common Pleas, the appeal was frivolous since it was an appeal from a directed verdict of acquittal, and the Act applied in this matter. The County of Horry articulates the issues on appeal: (1) may a Circuit Court sit to correct an error of law by a Magistrate Judge, when that error results in an acquittal on misdemeanor charges, the error is otherwise capable of repetition while evading review, and the County agrees it will not seek a retrial?; (2) whether the Circuit Court abused its discretion in declining to award sanctions against the prevailing party.

In this civil case, Appellants posit the Special Referee committed an error of law by misconstruing a single sentence of the contract so as to: (1) render meaningless the primary contractual rights and duties of the parties; and (2) permit West Oil Company to repudiate at will its contractual duty to allow R&B’s game machines in West Oil’s convenience stores for a period of one year.