Morin v. Trippe ( 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
In the Matter of James A. Trippe, III, Deceased.
Gene D. Morin, Conservator for Katelin Trippe,
Respondent,
v.
James Trippe, Jr., individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of James A. Trippe, III,
Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2015-000649
Appeal From Greenville County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-492
Submitted November 1, 2016 – Filed November 23, 2016
AFFIRMED
Oscar W. Bannister, of Bannister, Wyatt & Stalvey,
LLC; and Michael T. Coulter, of Clarkson Walsh Terrell
& Coulter, PA, both of Greenville, for Appellant.
Jacqueline Hiatt Patterson and Nathaniel Curtis Farmer,
both of Patterson & Associates, P.A., of Greenville, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: James Trippe, Jr., (Appellant) appeals from a circuit court order
affirming a finding of contempt from the probate court's order on the ground the
issue of contempt was moot. The circuit court also found, as an additional
sustaining ground, evidence supported the probate court's finding of contempt. On
appeal, Appellant argues the probate court erred by finding (1) him in contempt
and (2) he was personally liable for the debt. Because Appellant did not challenge
the circuit court's finding of mootness, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR,
and the following authorities: Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346, 692 S.E.2d 900,
903 (2010) ("Under the two issue rule, where a decision is based on more than one
ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds
because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case."); Wofford v. City
of Spartanburg ex rel. S.C. Mun. Ins. Trust, 415 S.C. 152, 158, 781 S.E.2d 146,
149 (Ct. App. 2015) ("It should be noted that although cases generally have
discussed the 'two issue' rule in the context of the appellate treatment of general
jury verdicts, the rule is applicable under other circumstances on appeal, including
affirmance of orders of trial courts." (quoting Anderson v. S.C. Dep't of Highways
& Pub. Transp., 322 S.C. 417, 420 n.1, 472 S.E.2d 253, 255 n.1 (1996)));
Anderson, 322 S.C. at 420 n.1, 472 S.E.2d at 255 n.1 ("For example, if a court
directs a verdict for a defendant on the basis of the defenses of statute of
limitations and contributory negligence, the order would be affirmed under the 'two
issue' rule if the plaintiff failed to appeal both grounds or if one of the grounds
required affirmance.").
AFFIRMED.1
HUFF and SHORT, JJ., and MOORE, A.J., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.