Walt Parker v. John C. Curl ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • 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
    Walt Parker, Appellant,
    v.
    John C. Curl, Respondent,
    v.
    Palmetto Floor Covering Installation, LLC, and Florence
    Custom Countertops, Inc., Third-Party Defendants.
    Appellate Case No. 2019-001370
    Appeal From Florence County
    Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-304
    Submitted June 1, 2022 – Filed July 20, 2022
    AFFIRMED
    William Reynolds Williams, of Willcox Buyck &
    Williams, PA, of Florence, for Appellant.
    Jon Rene Josey and Jeffrey L. Payne, both of Turner
    Padget Graham & Laney, PA, of Florence, for
    Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Walt Parker appeals the circuit court's order denying his request
    for specific performance and permanent injunction. Parker argues the circuit court
    erred by (1) considering the defense of unclean hands when it was not raised by
    John C. Curl and (2) finding Parker's post-contractual activity divested him of his
    entitlement to additional shares in Florence Carpet & Tile, Inc. We affirm
    pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.
    We find Parker's arguments have been abandoned on appeal. See State v. Lindsey,
    
    394 S.C. 354
    , 363, 
    714 S.E.2d 554
    , 558 (Ct. App. 2011) ("An issue is deemed
    abandoned and will not be considered on appeal if the argument is raised in a brief
    but not supported by authority."); Glasscock, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 
    348 S.C. 76
    , 81, 
    557 S.E.2d 689
    , 691 (Ct. App. 2001) ("South Carolina law clearly
    states that short, conclusory statements made without supporting authority are
    deemed abandoned on appeal and therefore not presented for review."). In his
    appellate brief, Parker makes short, conclusory statements and fails to cite to any
    relevant legal authority in support of his arguments. The majority of Parker's brief
    is a mere recitation of the evidence and testimony presented at trial. Accordingly,
    we find Parker's arguments are abandoned on appeal and decline to address the
    merits of the issues.
    AFFIRMED. 1
    WILLIAMS, C.J., and KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2022-UP-304

Filed Date: 7/20/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024