Livingston v. Danube Valley Exports ( 2012 )

THIS OPININON HAS NO PRECEDENTAL 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

---

Elizabeth Livingston, Respondent,

v.

Danube Valley Exports, LLC, Vicki W. Smith, and William Smith, Appellants.

---

Appeal From Charleston County
Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-037
Heard December 5, 2011 – Filed January 25, 2012

---

DISMISSED

---

Rolf Mouin Baghdady, of Chapin, for Appellants.

Timothy James Wood Muller, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Danube Valley Exports, LLC, Vicki W. Smith, and William Smith (collectively Danube Valley) appeal  the circuit court's order requiring Danube Valley to vacate its leased premises and pay past due rent to the owner of the leased premises, Elizabeth Livingston (Livingston).  Danube Valley claims the circuit court erroneously applied an ejectment statute when it ordered vacation of the premises and payment of rent because Danube Valley never objected to vacating the premises, only to the amount of rent due. 

Because Danube Valley conceded during oral arguments the circuit court's order is interlocutory, we dismiss pursuant to the following authorities:  Edwards v. SunCom, 369 S.C. 91, 94, 631 S.E.2d 529, 530 (2006) ("An order which involves the merits is one that 'must finally determine some substantial matter forming the whole or part of some cause of action or defense.'") (internal citation omitted); Brown v. Cnty. of Berkeley, 366 S.C. 354, 361, 622 S.E.2d 533, 537 (2005) ("It is well settled that an interlocutory order is not immediately appealable unless it involves the merits of the case or affects a substantial right.") (internal citation omitted); Ex parte Wilson, 367 S.C. 7, 13, 625 S.E.2d 205, 208 (2005) ("[Interlocutory] orders affecting a substantial right, 'discontinue an action, prevent an appeal, grant or refuse a new trial or strike out an action or defense.'") (internal citation omitted); Bowaters Carolina Corp. v. Carolina Pipeline Co., 259 S.C. 500, 505, 193 S.E.2d 129, 132 (1972) (holding an appellate court need not pursue an issue conceded during oral arguments); Tatnall v. Gardner, 350 S.C. 135, 138, 564 S.E.2d 377, 379 (Ct. App. 2002) ("[A]n order which does not put a final end to the case, nor establish any principle which will finally effect the merits of the case, nor deprive the party of any benefit which he may have at a final hearing, ought to be considered an interlocutory order, from which no appeal ought to be allowed.") (internal citation omitted).

DISMISSED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.