Aphrodite K. Konduros

In State v. Fripp, Diamon Fripp was convicted of trafficking in cocaine after police found a bag of the drug near where he had been in a nightclub parking lot; he was initially detained for evading an officer investigating a disturbance, and officers also recovered cash and stones from him during a search. The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the trial judge erred by instructing the jury on both actual and constructive possession of drugs, because the facts presented—no direct observation of Fripp handling or dropping the drugs, only circumstantial evidence after he briefly disappeared behind a truck—supported only an actual-possession theory. The erroneous instruction was deemed prejudicial, as it was irrelevant, risked confusing the jury, and could have affected the verdict given the lack of direct evidence tying Fripp to the cocaine. The court did not reach Fripp’s other claims regarding his statements or the search evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether the South Carolina family court could terminate Matthew G.’s parental rights to his child and grant his ex-wife’s new husband’s adoption petition, or whether Georgia retained exclusive jurisdiction under prior custody orders. The South Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the family court’s termination and adoption order. It held that the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act and Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act applied to the termination proceeding, Georgia had continuing jurisdiction based on its earlier legitimation, custody, and visitation decrees, and South Carolina lacked authority to modify those decrees absent a Georgia court’s determination that it no longer had jurisdiction or that South Carolina was a more convenient forum.

family law

Matthew Sullivan sued multiple companies, including Aircraft Belt, Inc., Mena Aircraft Interiors, and Pacific Scientific, in South Carolina for injuries from a 2005 airplane crash that occurred in the state, after an Ohio lawsuit became time-barred. The trial court dismissed the claims against these out-of-state defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Sullivan failed to make a prima facie showing under South Carolina’s long-arm statute, which requires both tortious injury in the state from an out-of-state act and that the defendant regularly does business, engages in persistent conduct, or derives substantial revenue from the state; the defendants’ unrebutted affidavits showed their South Carolina contacts were minimal (under 1% of revenue, no local licenses or services). Sullivan offered no supporting evidence or discovery to contradict this, and the trial court acted within its discretion in denying further discovery or a second amended complaint because no new facts were identified that could establish jurisdiction.

proceduretorts & liability

Barbara Solley sued Navy Federal Credit Union for conversion, slander of title, and negligence after her co-owner obtained a $233,000 mortgage on their jointly owned home without her knowledge; the Bank defaulted, and after Solley elected to proceed on slander of title, a special referee awarded her actual and punitive damages. Both parties appealed, raising issues including whether Solley was required to elect remedies before the damages hearing, whether the default judgment was proper, and whether the damages awards were supported. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the default stood but that the $233,000 actual damages award was improper because the mortgage was legally ineffective under South Carolina’s joint-tenancy statute and could not encumber the property. The court also reversed the punitive damages award because Solley’s complaint contained no allegations of willful, wanton, or reckless conduct by the Bank.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Fripp, Gerald Fripp appealed his conviction for second-degree burglary of a convenience store, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing two store employees to identify him as the person on surveillance video, admitting hearsay about his clothing, accepting his police statement without a full voluntariness inquiry, introducing two prior burglary convictions, and denying a for-cause strike of a juror who was a recent robbery victim. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. It held that the employees’ identifications satisfied the requirements for lay-opinion testimony under Rule 701 because they were based on personal familiarity with Fripp and helpful to the jury; that Fripp’s Miranda warnings remained effective when he gave his statement; that the prior convictions were admissible as an essential element of second-degree burglary; and that any juror issue did not require reversal because the juror affirmed impartiality and Fripp had not exhausted his peremptory strikes.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved claims by Clara Gordon Burch’s Gordon family heirs against the estate of her late husband George Burch, his children, and his attorney Jacqueline Busbee, alleging that George misused a 1995 power of attorney (lacking any gifting authority) to transfer roughly $400,000–$450,000 from Clara’s accounts and CDs into his own name or joint accounts before her 2000 death, along with related claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and improper estate administration. The circuit court denied the Gordons’ motions for directed verdict on several issues, granted directed verdicts to the defendants on most claims (including all against Dennis Burch and nearly all against Busbee and Laurie Burch), and the jury found for the remaining defendants; it also refused certain jury charges and equitable relief such as a constructive trust. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed in part, holding that factual disputes existed on joint-account ownership and that many procedural and evidentiary rulings were correct, but reversed in part because the POA did not authorize George’s self-benefiting transfers under controlling precedent and remanded for further proceedings on the affected claims.

family lawpropertytorts & liabilityprocedure

Christopher Price suffered a back injury in 2002 while employed by Peachtree Electrical Services and a second injury in 2003 while employed by Bob Wire Electrical. Peachtree paid additional temporary disability and medical benefits after the 2003 incident, then sought reimbursement from Bob Wire through a workers’ compensation proceeding; the single commissioner, Appellate Panel, and circuit court all ordered Bob Wire to pay roughly $160,000. The Court of Appeals vacated those orders, holding that the Commission lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the Commission’s authority is derived solely from statute and the dispute was an equitable reimbursement claim between two employers that did not affect Price’s own compensation rights, the matter fell outside the Commission’s statutory purview and should have been dismissed.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this post-conviction relief case, Kareen Donyell Lee argued that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a competency evaluation before he entered guilty pleas in 2005 to multiple charges including burglary and weapons offenses. A forensic evaluation conducted six months later found Lee had an IQ of 61, a history of mental retardation, and was incompetent to stand trial, with testimony indicating the condition likely existed at the time of the pleas. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of relief, holding that counsel’s performance was not deficient. The court reasoned that counsel met with Lee multiple times, observed no signs of impairment or need for evaluation, received no information about his prior mental health history or disability benefits from Lee or his family, and that the PCR court had credited counsel’s testimony on these points. Although evidence showed Lee’s mental limitations predated the pleas, the absence of any indication to counsel at the time precluded a finding of ineffectiveness.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a custody dispute between unmarried parents of an eleven-year-old autistic child, with the mother having been the primary caretaker since birth and the father seeking custody after irregular early involvement. The family court awarded custody to the father, citing concerns over the mother's judgment (including her relationship with a much younger man and abortion decision), combativeness with school officials, and limited access to therapies, while structuring visitation for the mother. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the custody award in part (while reversing and remanding on other issues), applying a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis focused on the child's best interests rather than requiring the father to show changed circumstances. The court reasoned that no prior custody order or agreement existed, making this an initial determination under state law, and concluded the father was better positioned to provide stability and appropriate care despite the child's established routine with the mother. A dissent argued the change-of-circumstances standard should apply to protect the autistic child's need for stability.

family law

In Pugh v. Piedmont Mechanical, a workers’ compensation case, James Pugh sought medical treatment and benefits after a 2007 right-knee injury on the job, which followed an earlier 2006 knee injury; the dispute centered on the proper calculation of his average weekly wage for the second injury and his entitlement to temporary total disability benefits during a roughly three-month period he was out of work. The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Panel’s rulings on those points and remanded the case. The court held that the Panel’s use of Pugh’s seventeen-week post-2006 return-to-work earnings to set the 2007 average weekly wage at $537.20 was error because that brief interval did not fairly represent his normal forty-hour weeks at $18 per hour, and the statute’s “exceptional circumstances” provision therefore required a different computation method; it further held that the Panel had made no specific findings on whether Pugh’s medical restrictions and commute limitations justified his decision to stay off work without pay.

labor & employment

In State v. Jackson, Andre Jackson appealed his conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana after police stopped the car in which he was a passenger on I-85, smelled marijuana, deployed a drug dog, and found four bags hidden under the center console; Jackson argued the stop was invalid and that the State failed to prove he constructively possessed the drugs rather than merely being present. The trial court upheld the stop under a state statute prohibiting impeding traffic and denied Jackson’s directed-verdict motion, finding sufficient evidence of constructive possession. The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the State presented no evidence Jackson owned or controlled the car, had any prior connection to it, knew the drugs were present, or acted suspiciously, and that his mere presence as a passenger was legally insufficient to support the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a Speedmaster machine seized by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) from a convenience store was an illegal gaming device under S.C. Code § 12-21-2710. The magistrate ruled it was not, finding insufficient evidence it involved gambling or constituted a game of chance rather than skill, and the circuit court affirmed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that SLED’s argument regarding the machine’s free-play feature was not preserved because the lower courts never ruled on it, and that the magistrate’s determination of skill was supported by at least slight evidence (including a technician winning 15 of 16 games). The court further noted that, under its deferential standard of review, it need not adopt a specific test for chance versus skill, and that the absence of proof of actual gambling use was not fatal once the game-of-chance issue was resolved against SLED.

criminal lawprocedure

In Potter v. Spartanburg School District 7, a workers’ compensation claimant sought additional benefits after falling from a ladder while performing HVAC maintenance, resulting in a fractured right femur, brief loss of consciousness, and a minor head cut; he alleged physical brain damage, psychological injury, and permanent total disability beyond the admitted right-leg impairment. The single commissioner and Appellate Panel found that Potter reached maximum medical improvement with only a 30% permanent partial disability to the right leg, suffered no causally related physical brain damage, and had only a temporary psychological overlay that produced no permanent disability; the circuit court affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Appellate Panel acted within its discretion in assigning less weight to the psychologist’s brain-damage opinion because it exceeded his expertise and in crediting contrary medical evidence from treating physicians and neurologists. The court further held that the remaining issues on appeal were abandoned for lack of supporting legal authority in the appellant’s brief.

labor & employment

In Barrow v. Barrow, a divorcing couple disputed the family court's handling of equitable distribution after a five-year marriage with no children, focusing on roughly $261,000 in unpaid marital income taxes (plus penalties) caused by the husband's failure to file returns, a $40,000 down payment on the marital home from the wife's parents, and related assets like the wife's 401(k). The family court had assigned the entire tax debt to the husband, awarded the wife a $30,000 special equity in the home, and divided other marital property equally. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the tax apportionment, holding that the original tax liability was marital debt incurred for the parties' joint benefit and should be shared proportionally to their incomes (roughly 56% husband, 44% wife) while excluding penalties attributable to the husband's nonpayment; it modified the home equity ruling to treat the down payment as a non-repaid gift that became marital property to be divided equally rather than granting the wife separate credit. The court affirmed the equal division of other assets and denial of attorney fees, reasoning that both parties engaged in economic misconduct affecting their finances and that statutory equitable-distribution factors did not warrant greater weight on the wife's overspending.

family lawtaxesproperty

In this case, Palmetto Company sued tenant Sean McMahon in magistrate’s court to collect unpaid rent under a commercial lease that began in 1997 and automatically renewed yearly, using a distraint action filed in 2008. The magistrate and circuit courts ruled that the ten-year statute of limitations in section 15-3-350 applied because the claim involved rents from real property. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the three-year limitations period in section 15-3-530 for contract actions governs instead. The court reasoned that a lease is a contract, so the rent claim arose from that agreement rather than from any title to real property, placing the action under the article for “Actions Other Than for Recovery of Real Property.”

propertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a commercial real estate purchase agreement in South Carolina, where the buyer paid $215,000 in earnest money and extension fees but failed to close by the extended deadline of March 26, 2007, leading the seller to rescind the contract. A jury found that neither party breached the agreement and awarded no damages, after which the buyer sought restitution under an unjust enrichment theory to recover the payments. The trial court denied the claim, allowing the seller to retain the funds based on evidence of the seller's incurred costs, lost income, and property damages from the delayed closing. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, determining that the buyer had met the elements for unjust enrichment since the seller rescinded and retained the benefit without a contractual basis to keep the payments. The core reasoning focused on the equitable requirement that the seller return the non-gratuitous benefit conferred by the buyer after the contract's rescission.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In Wise v. Wise, claimant Stephen Brad Wise sought workers' compensation benefits for injuries from a 2000 workplace accident but had also filed a civil tort action against his employer and the City of Orangeburg, obtaining a default judgment against the employer and settling with the City. The circuit court and Commission proceedings involved disputes over whether evidence of the civil suit could be introduced as newly discovered evidence under Regulation 67-707 and whether the suit barred the workers' compensation claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claim, holding that the civil action removed the matter from the Commission's jurisdiction, that the claimant had elected his remedy by pursuing the tort suit on the same facts, and that the evidence of the civil proceedings met the criteria for admission as new evidence despite not existing at the time of the initial hearing. The court further noted that an earlier circuit court ruling on the evidence was not law of the case because it was interlocutory.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

In this family court dispute, Ryan Conard (Father) challenged the trial court's rulings on custody, relocation, attorney's fees, and a restraining order after Virginia McComb (Mother) sought to move with their daughter from South Carolina to Florida. The Court of Appeals affirmed the family court's decision granting the parties joint legal custody while allowing Mother to relocate with the child, awarding Mother attorney's fees, and imposing a restraining order on overnight contact with unrelated opposite-sex adults. The court applied a de novo standard of review but deferred to the family court's credibility findings, concluding that the child's best interests supported the custody arrangement based on Mother's primary caregiving role and other factors such as her employment opportunities. It also upheld the attorney's fees award and restraining order as within the family court's discretion and found no error in the reversal of an oral reconsideration order via the final written judgment.

family law

The case involved a dispute between the Crystal Pines Homeowners Association and Don Phillips, successor to the subdivision developer, over responsibility for road maintenance and residents' access to a boat ramp. The master-in-equity ruled that Phillips was obligated to maintain the roads under a 1981 deed and that residents held an easement for the boat ramp; Phillips appealed both findings. The court reversed on the roads, holding the deed ambiguous but that the developer's obligations did not extend to ongoing maintenance by Phillips after conveyance. It affirmed the easement ruling, finding residents had established a prescriptive easement through open use under a claim of right for the required twenty-year period, supported by testimony, a 1986 plat, and other evidence. The decision was affirmed in part and reversed in part.

property

In C-Sculptures, LLC v. Brown, homeowners appealed the confirmation of an arbitration award in a dispute with their general contractor over unpaid amounts for home construction exceeding $800,000, arguing the contractor's license limited it to projects under $100,000 and thus the contract was unenforceable, and that the contractor manipulated pleadings to claim prevailing-party status for attorney's fees. The court affirmed the circuit court's decision to uphold the arbitrator's award of roughly $51,730 plus interest and fees to the contractor. The core reasoning was that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law on licensing requirements or the statutory process for determining the prevailing party under mechanic's lien provisions, as the arbitrator properly considered the amended claim amount and offers of settlement in applying the relevant statutes.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure