Stroman v. Stroman ( 2014 )

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
In re: Estate of Samuel D. Stroman, Decedent.
Jamileh S.D. Stroman and Synthia D. Stroman,
Respondents,
v.
Samuel D. Stroman, II, and Sherolyn D. Stroman,
Defendants,
Of whom Samuel D. Stroman, II, is the Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2013-000549
Appeal From Orangeburg County
Olin Davie Burgdorf, Master-in-Equity
Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-397
Submitted September 1, 2014 – Filed November 12, 2014
AFFIRMED
Thomas Jefferson Goodwyn, Jr., of Goodwyn Law Firm,
LLC, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Andrew Sims Radeker, of Harrison & Radeker, P.A., of
Columbia, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Sundown Operating Co. v. Intedge Indus., Inc., 383 S.C. 601, 606, 681
S.E.2d 885, 888 (2009) ("The decision whether to set aside an entry of default or a
default judgment lies solely within the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); id.("The trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing
of an abuse of that discretion."); id. at 607, 681 S.E.2d at 888 ("[A] party seeking
relief from an entry of default under Rule 55(c) [must] provide an explanation for
the default and give reasons why vacation of the default entry would serve the
interests of justice."); Howard v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 271 S.C. 238, 241, 246 S.E.2d
880, 882 (1978) (holding a defaulting defendant's participation in a damages
hearing is limited to cross-examination of witnesses and objection to evidence);
Limehouse v. Hulsey, 404 S.C. 93, 116, 744 S.E.2d 566, 578-79 (2013) (adhering
to the procedures adopted in Howard despite the intervening adoption of Rule 55,
SCRCP).
AFFIRMED.1
WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.