Supreme Court Seal
Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
Judicial Department
Court of Appeals Published Opinions - July 2008

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.

7-8-2008 - Opinions

4422 - Fowler v. Hunter

In this case, the defendant driver assigned the plaintiffs her professional negligence claim against the defendant insurance agent. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance agent finding the plaintiffs failed to prove damages. We reverse, finding settlement agreements like the one in this case are beneficial and permissible, so long as there is no evidence of collusion.

4423 - State v. Nelson

In this criminal case, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's decision to admit an accomplice's written statement regarding the details of the crime into evidence. The Court found the statement satisfied the requirements of Rule 801(d)(1)(B), SCRE, and State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114, 121-22, 551 S.E.2d 240, 244 (2001), such that its admission was proper.

4424 - Semken v. Semken

This is an appeal from the family court's order terminating the husband's obligation to pay alimony pursuant to the continued cohabitation provision of section 20-3-130(B)(1) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2007). The family court applied the ordinary meaning of the word "reside" to the definition of "continued cohabitation" and found the wife and her boyfriend resided together for the required period of time during their relationship. Following the family court's order, the Supreme Court issued Strickland v. Strickland, 375 S.C. 76, 89, 650 S.E.2d 465, 472 (2007), wherein the Supreme Court stated that "continued cohabitation" requires the spouse receiving alimony to "live under the same roof as the person with whom they are romantically involved for at least ninety consecutive days." Applying this interpretation to the wife's relationship, the Court of Appeals found the wife and her boyfriend did not continuously cohabitate for ninety or more consecutive days, and therefore, reversed the family court's order terminating the husband's alimony obligation.

4425 - McNair v. Fairfield County

This appeal arises out of Fairfield County’s attempt to condemn private property owned by E. Chandler McNair. McNair filed a complaint challenging the County’s right to condemn the property, and after receiving inadequate responses to his requests for discovery, McNair moved for sanctions. The trial court granted the motion, struck the County’s answer, and dismissed the condemnation action with prejudice. The County appeals, and we affirm.

7-15-2008 - Opinions

4426 - Mozingo & Wallace v. Grand

This case involves cross-appeals in a mechanic's lien action. Patricia Grand argues the trial court erred in holding Mozingo & Wallace Architects complied with its obligations under the contract. Patricia Grand also asserts the trial court erred in holding Mozingo was entitled to attorney's fees. Mozingo & Wallace Architects argues the trial court erred in limiting its award of attorney's fees to the principal debt recited in the notice and certificarte of mechanic's lien without affording credit for prejudgment interest.

4427 - M&M Group, Inc. v. Holmes

In this breach of contract action regarding the sale of a carwash and lube business, M&M Group, Inc. appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to a potential buyer. We affirm.

7-18-2008 - Opinions

4428 - State v. Brannon

Appellant Brannon was convicted of resisting arrest for fleeing on foot from police officers who yelled

7-23-2008 - Opinions

4429 - Williams v. Watkins

This cases discusses the immunity afforded to mandatory reporters under South Carolina's Omnibus Adult Protection Act. We affirm the circuit court's finding of immunity.

4430 - State v. Breeze

In this criminal case, we affirm the trial court's determination that Elbert Breeze properly wavied his Miranda rights.