GrandSouth Bank v. Cleveland Land Company ( 2015 )

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
GrandSouth Bank, Appellant,
v.
Cleveland Land Company, Inc., Walter C. Robinson, and
Albert E. Fitzgerald, Defendants,
Of Whom Walter C. Robinson is the Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2014-002384
Appeal From Greenville County
Charles B. Simmons, Jr., Master-in-Equity
Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-470
Submitted August 1, 2015 – Filed October 7, 2015
AFFIRMED
Aimee Victoria-Ann Leary and Wendell Leon Hawkins,
both of Wendell L. Hawkins, PA, of Greer, for
Appellant.
Rodney F. Pillsbury, of Pillsbury & Read, PA, of
Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 15-39-30 (2005) ("Executions may issue upon final
judgments or decrees at any time within ten years from the date of the original
entry thereof and shall have active energy during such period, without any renewal
or renewals thereof, and this whether any return may or may not have been made
during such period on such executions."); Linda Mc Co. v. Shore, 390 S.C. 543,
554-55, 703 S.E.2d 499, 505 (2010) (recognizing section 15-39-30 operates
similarly to a statute of limitations in certain circumstances); id. at 554, 703 S.E.2d
at 505 ("[W]hen a party has complied with the applicable statutes . . . and is merely
waiting on a court's order regarding execution and levy, the ten[-]year limitation
found in section 15-39-30 is extended to when the court finally issues an order.");
id. at 555, 703 S.E.2d at 505 (holding an order to execute and levy upon the assets
of a judgment debtor was effective because it was the result of a petition for
supplemental proceedings filed before the expiration of the ten-year limitation
under section 15-39-30); id. at 554, 703 S.E.2d at 505 (emphasizing the court's
holding was narrow and should be limited to facts similar to those at issue in that
case).
AFFIRMED.1
FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.