Supreme Court Seal
Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
Judicial Department
Court of Appeals Published Opinions - February 2022

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.

2-9-2022 - Opinions

5893 - Isabelle MacKenzie v. C&B Logging and Charles Brandon Barr

In this negligence case, Appellant/Respondent Isabelle MacKenzie argues that she should have been allowed to introduce into evidence certain prior criminal charges and convictions of a driver whose alleged negligence led to her injuries. On cross-appeal, Respondents/Appellants C&B Logging and Charles Brandon Barr argue that if the panel reverses the circuit court, it should then enter a directed verdict on MacKenzie's employment-related claims because Barr was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. We affirm.

2-23-2022 - Opinions

5894 - Karl & Terri Hager v. McCabe, Trotter & Beverly

This is an appeal by several condominium owners of an order dismissing their claims against a law firm. The firm advised the property's homeowners' association after a hurricane damaged several units. The circuit court dismissed the claims for a number of reasons, including that the owners could not sue the firm because the firm's client was the homeowners' association, not the individual owners. We reverse the portion of the judgment dismissing the owners' derivative claims on behalf of the HOA but affirm the dismissal of all other claims.

5895 - Elena V. Glinyanay v. William A. Tobias

William Tobias (Father) appeals a family court order granting Elena Glinyanay (Mother) sole custody of their two daughters, suspending Father's visitation rights, ordering Father to undergo a psychological evaluation and complete any recommended treatment, ordering Father's counselor and daughters' counselor to determine when Father's visitation could resume, and ordering Father to pay $12,500 of Mother's attorney's fees and one-half of the guardian ad litem (GAL) fees. On appeal, Father challenges the admission of out-of-court statements his daughters made to two counselors and the GAL. Common to these challenges is Father's claim that admission of the statements denied him due process by depriving him of the right to confront his daughters by cross-examination and to call his oldest daughter as a witness. Father also appeals the family court's decision to continue the suspension of his visitation and delegating the decision as to when his visitation may resume to the counselors. Finally, Father asks us to reverse the family court's rulings as to attorney's fees and GAL fees. We affirm the family court's rulings, except for the delegation order and the award of attorney's fees to Mother, which we reverse.