Butterworth v. Larrimore ( 2012 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD
NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Earl Butterworth, III, Appellant,
v.
Andy Larrimore and Coastal
Sand, LLC, Defendants,
Of Whom Coastal Sand, LLC is
the Respondent.
Laurie Butterworth, Plaintiff,
v.
Andy Larrimore and Coastal
Sand, LLC, Defendants.
__________
Appeal From Horry County
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge
__________
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-506
Submitted June 1, 2012 – Filed September 5, 2012
__________
__________
AFFIRMED
__________
Mark A. Nappier, of Murrells Inlet, for Appellant.
J. Boone Aiken, III, of Florence, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Earl Butterworth, III appeals the trial court's grant of
summary judgment in favor of Coastal Sand, LLC. On appeal, Butterworth
argues genuine issues of material fact exist concerning whether a joint
enterprise existed between Andy Larrimore and Coastal Sand for the
transportation of Coastal Sand's box blade by Larrimore. We affirm1
pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule
56(c), SCRCP (providing summary judgment is appropriate when "the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law" and "the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact"); Peoples Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club,
310 S.C. 132, 147, 425 S.E.2d 764, 774 (Ct. App. 1992) ("A joint enterprise
exists where there are two or more persons united in the joint prosecution of a
common purpose under such circumstances that each has authority, express
or implied, to act for all in respect to the control of the means and the
agencies employed to execute such common purpose. Further, in order to
constitute a joint enterprise, there must be a common purpose and community
of interest in the object of the enterprise and an equal right to direct and
control the conduct of each other with respect thereto." (citation omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.