Charleston Harbor v. Davis ( 2016 )

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
Charleston Harbor Resort & Marina, Respondent,
v.
Paul Davis, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2014-001345
Appeal From Charleston County
Mikell R. Scarborough, Master-in-Equity
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-061
Submitted December 1, 2015 – Filed February 17, 2016
AFFIRMED
Paul Davis, of Newberry, pro se.
William A. Scott, of Pedersen & Scott, PC, of
Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Rule 4(d)(1), SCRCP (allowing service of process upon an individual
"by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to him personally . . . or by
delivering a copy to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive
service of process"); Delta Apparel, Inc. v. Farina, 406 S.C. 257, 267, 750 S.E.2d
615, 620 (Ct. App. 2013) (noting South Carolina courts have "never required
exacting compliance with the rules to effect service of process" (quoting Roche v.
Young Bros. of Florence, 318 S.C. 207, 209-10, 456 S.E.2d 897, 899 (1995))); id.("Rather, [courts] inquire whether the plaintiff has sufficiently complied with the
rules such that the court has personal jurisdiction of the defendant and the
defendant has notice of the proceedings." (quoting Roche, 318 S.C. at 210, 456
S.E.2d at 899)); Roberson v. S. Fin. of S.C., Inc., 365 S.C. 6, 10, 615 S.E.2d 112,
115 (2005) ("An agent's authority is composed of his or her actual authority,
whether express or implied, together with the apparent authority which the
principal by his or her conduct is precluded from denying.").
AFFIRMED.1
FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.