Live event will begin:
Select the South Carolina Court of Appeals Courtroom I or Courtroom II below to view upcoming cases.
To view archived court cases, visit the South Carolina Court of Appeals Video Portal.
South Carolina Court of Appeals Courtroom I
The summary below each case is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what issues are included in a case which will be argued. The summary is not a limit on what issues a party to a case may present at oral argument.
Tuesday, October 8, 2024
10:40 a.m.
(Time Limits: 15-15-5)
2022-001479
Elizabeth Heatley, Neil B. McCann, Jr., David Neil Monk, Thomas V. Bessent, and Mariner's Cay Marina Council of Co-Owners, Inc., Respondents, v. Mariner's Cay Marina Condo, LLC, Mariner's Cay Fuel Dock, LLC, George A. Farmer., Jr., and South Atlantic Bank, Defendants, Of which Mariner's Cay Marina Condo, LLC, Mariner's Cay Fuel Dock, LLC, and George A. Farmer., Jr. are the Appellants.
Kevin W. Mims and Whidbee Sale Perrin, Sr., both of Luzuriaga Mims, LLP, of Charleston, both for Appellant Mariner's Cay Marina Condo, LLC and George A. Farmer, Jr. George Hamlin O'Kelley, III, of Buist Byars & Taylor, LLC, of Mt. Pleasant, for Appellants Mariner's Cay Marina Condo, LLC and Mariner's Cay Fuel Dock, LLC. Capers G. Barr, III, of Barr Unger & McIntosh, LLC, of Charleston; and David Cooper Cleveland, of Clawson & Staubes, LLC, of Charleston, both for Respondents.
Mariner's Cay Marina Condo, LLC, Mariner's Cay Fuel Dock, LLC, and George A. Farmer appeal the master-in-equity's order granting declaratory relief to Elizabeth Heatley, Neal B. McCann, Jr., David Neil Monk, and Thomas V. Bessent. Appellants challenge the master's finding that the 2007 Master Deed for the Mariner's Cay Horizontal Property Regime is void to the extent it converted common elements into individual units because Appellants contend Respondents acquiesced to the amendments. Appellants further argue judicial estoppel bars Respondents from raising certain arguments related to ownership of the former common elements.
11:20 a.m.
(Time Limits: 10/10/10/5/5)
Arthur Field and Kathryn Taillon appeal an order of the circuit court granting Jerry T. Saad's (Receiver's) motion for declaratory relief and finding the Receiver's action to collect a civil judgment from Field in Florida was permitted under the Global Settlement Agreement (GSA). On appeal, Field argues the circuit court erred by (1) not applying the South Carolina Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (SCUDJA), (2) finding it had personal jurisdiction over him and subject matter jurisdiction over the case, and (3) awarding Capital Investment Funding, LLC (CIF) liquidated damages. Taillon argues the circuit court erred by (4) finding it had jurisdiction in this matter when the judge who retained jurisdiction pursuant to the terms of the GSA later recused himself, (5) improperly applying SCUDJA in deciding the Receiver's motion, (6) finding the GSA did not bar the Receiver from enforcing the civil judgment, and (7) awarding CIF liquidated damages.
12:00 p.m.
(Time Limits: 10-10-5)
2021-001439
Liam Wallis, Appellant, v. The Boeing Company, Anthony Timms, and Monica Williams, Respondents.
Alexander Woods Tesoriero, of The Law Office of Alexander Woods LLC; O. Grady Query and Michael W. Sautter,both of Query Sautter & Associates, LLC; and McKenna Catherine Joyce, all of Charleston, for Appellant. Benjamin Philip Glass, of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, PC, of Charleston; Christina Landsdowne Rogers, of Maynard Nexsen, PC, of Columbia; and Cherie W. Blackburn, of Charleston, all for Respondents.
On appeal from an employment matter, Liam Wallis argues the circuit court erred in dismissing his cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy on the grounds that (1) Wallis had a statutory remedy under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century; and (2) Wallis failed to sufficiently plead his termination contravened a clear mandate of public policy.
South Carolina Court of Appeals Courtroom II
The summary below each case is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what issues are included in a case which will be argued. The summary is not a limit on what issues a party to a case may present at oral argument.
Tuesday, October 8, 2024
10:40 a.m.
(Time Limits: 10-10-5)
2022-000231
Forum Benefits, LLC, Appellant, v. Brian Bannon and Assured Partners, NL, Respondents.
William Weston Jones Newton, of Jones Simpson & Newton, PA, of Bluffton; Katon Edwards Dawson, Jr., of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP, of Columbia; Timothy David St. Clair, of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP, of Greenville; and Steven R. LeBlanc, of Steve LeBlanc, LLC, of Greenville, all for Appellant. William B. Harvey, III, of Harvey & Battey, PA, of Beaufort; and Jeffrey Andrew Lehrer and Matthew J. Gilley, both of Ford & Harrison, LLP, of Spartanburg, all for Respondents.
Appellant Forum Benefits, LLC (Forum) commenced the underlying action against Respondents Brian Bannon and Assured Partners, LLC alleging violation of the South Carolina Trade Secrets Act (SCTSA) and interference with a contractual relationship. Against Bannon, individually, Appellant alleged breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court granted directed verdict in favor of Respondents. Appellant argues the grant of directed verdict was in error. Appellant also asserts the trial court erred in granting attorney's fees to Respondents and, if awarding attorney's fees was proper, the trial court erred in its calculation of attorney's fees. Finally, Appellant argues the trial court judge erred in denying Appellant's motion to recuse, resulting in Appellant not receiving a fair trial.
11:20 a.m.
(Time Limits: 10-10-5)
2023-000082
Audra Starnes, Respondent, v. Craig Stoneburner and Citivest Corporation, Appellants.
Walter B. Todd, Jr., of Walter B. Todd, Jr., PC, of Columbia, for Appellants. Mark Paget Fessler, of S.C. Legal Services, of Greenville, for Respondent.
In this lease dispute case, Appellant, Craig Stoneburner, appeals the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Respondent, Audra Starnes. Specifically, he alleges the court's order was improper when further inquiry into the facts was desirable and there were genuine issues of material fact; his alleged failure to deliver possession of the property to Starnes was not willful or in bad faith; he timely returned Starnes's security deposit; and Starnes was not entitled to 3-months' rent or attorney's fees.