Note: Beginning in June 2012, opinions will be posted as Adobe PDFs. You can download a free copy of Adobe Reader here.
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.
2-7-2005 - Opinions
Bruce Tipi appeals the circuit court's grant of Branch Banking and Trust Company of South Carolina's motion for summary judgment, which rendered him personally liable on a $325,000 guaranty owed to the Bank. Tipi alleges the circuit court erred in finding the guaranty was supported by sufficient legal consideration and mutual assent. We affirm finding sufficient consideration and mutual assent in the simultaneous execution of the bank's agreement to extend a line of credit and Tipi's guaranty.
Husband appeals from the order of the family court which granted the parties a divorce, divided the marital property, imputed income to Husband, established child support and visitation, and required him to pay attorneys' fees and guardian ad litem fees. Wife also appeals, constesting the equitable distribution and the determination of marital property. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Affirms the trial court's refusal to charge proof of an overt act is required in a case where it is alleged a wife conspired to kill her husband and thus should not benefit from his death.
2-14-2005 - Opinions
This is an appeal of a grant of summary judgment in an action for collection on an agreement for contract labor. Eastern Tree Service argues there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether SC Labor Ltd. was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and as to the amount it was entitled to recover.
Affirms trial court's ruling that (1) alleged agreement for severance allowance was not enforceable pursuant to Virginia law and (2) alleged discovery abuses did not justify the grant of a new trial.
2-22-2005 - Opinions
Global Sun-Pools, Inc. and Ken Darwin appeal from the circuit court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration.
In this criminal appeal, the appellant alleges the Trial Court erred in: (1) Not following the appropriate procedure in allowing the victim to identify the defendant in court; (2) Allowing the enlarged photo of Richard Carlson to be admitted into evidence; (3) Not re-reading all testimony of the victim as was requested by the jury; (4) Improperly communicating with jurors while deliberations were ongoing; (5) Allowing the Solicitor’s office to engage in an improper closing argument; (6) Failing to find a Brady v. Maryland violation; (7) Allowing cross-examination of Heather Wilson through a written statement; and (8) Telling Appellant Carlson any criminal conviction would be admissible if he took the stand.
In this Workers’ Compensation case, the Appellant contends the Circuit Court erred in holding that the Appellant insurance carrier was not entitled to reimbursement from the Second Injury Fund for compensation payments made by the Appellant insurance carrier for the total loss of the claimant’s right leg.
The issue on appeal is whether a family court judge has the constitutional authority to give a contempt sentence in excess of six months without granting a jury trial.
In this civil action, the court reviews a special referee's finding that a property owner failed to establish a prescriptive easement for ingress and egress over a private road owned by an abutting property owner.
2-28-2005 - Opinions
Appellant, who was fourteen years old at the time he was charged with the murder of his father, argues the circuit court was without jurisdiction to accept his guilty pleas to voluntary manslaughter and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime because the family court erroneously waived jurisdiction.
This is an appeal from the denial of relief from default judgment under Rule 60(b), SCRCP. Appellant raises two exceptions to the default judgment: (1) that the default was in error because it was never properly served with the plaintiff’s summons and complaint, and (2) alternatively, even if service were proper, it was not notified of the subsequent damages hearing concerning this unliquidated claim. We join the circuit court in rejecting Appellant’s first exception, finding service of process was effective, but we agree with Appellant’s second argument that notice of the damages hearing was insufficient. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the circuit court for a new damages hearing.
Appellant appeals the circuit court's order finding she was precluded from recovering uninsured motorist benefits under the applicable statute insurance provision.