Supreme Court Seal
Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
Judicial Department
Court of Appeals Published Opinions - February 2017

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.

2-1-2017 - Opinions

5466 - Toney v. Lee County School District

The Lee County School District Board of Trustees (the Board) appeals the circuit court's reversal of its decision to terminate the employment of teacher Laura Toney. We affirm.

2-8-2017 - Opinions

5467 - Belle Hall Plantation v. Keys

In this foreclosure action, D. Conor Keys and Karen Keys (the Keys) allege the Master-in-Equity erred by vacating a foreclosure sale, denying their motion to stay the order vacating the sale, and denying their motion to strike affidavits presented to the master. We affirm.

2-15-2017 - Opinions

5468 - Brooks v. South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense

Appellant Charles Brooks challenges the circuit court's order disqualifying Irma Brooks, Appellant's wife and law partner, from representing him and disqualifying Appellant from representing himself pursuant to Rule 3.7 of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

5469 - First Citizens Bank v. Park at Durbin Creek

The court of appeals affirms the circuit court's decision to set aside a property conveyance from Kenneth Clifton to the Park at Durbin Creek, LLC. The court concluded that First Citizens Bank established the conveyance was made in violation of the Statute of Elizabeth, Clifton failed to rebut this presumption, and thus, the transfer was invalid.

2-22-2017 - Opinions

5470 - State v. Brandenburg

In this criminal appeal, Charles Brandenburg, Jr., claims the circuit court erred in charging the jury on first-degree harassment (harassment) as a lesser included offense of stalking. The court of appeals disagreed with Brandenburg's argument that harassment is not a lesser included offense of stalking because harassment includes two elements not found in stalking: "unreasonable intrusion into the private life of a targeted person" and "emotional distress." In making this conclusion, the court found that despite the difference in the wording of the elements between the two crimes, the legislature intended harassment to be a lesser-included offense of stalking.