The South Carolina Court of Appeals construed an ambiguous family deed using surrounding circumstances, affirmed partition, and rejected a late challenge to the master’s authority.
The South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld apportionment of six mortgage and credit-card income streams to South Carolina and sustained understatement penalties, while modifying the governing subsection for card income.
The South Carolina Court of Appeals held that Mastercard performs income-producing activity in the state when its network enables transactions at South Carolina merchants and upheld assessments and failure-to-file penalties.
The Court of Appeals upheld removal of a persistently disruptive self-represented defendant and continuation of trial without imposed standby counsel.
The Court of Appeals reinstated charges because diligent efforts to find Spanish interpreters and no specific defense prejudice defeated the speedy-trial claim.
The Court of Appeals remanded a cell-tower permit because the planning commission failed to make reviewable findings or address preserved restrictive-covenant issues.
The Court of Appeals reversed a murder conviction because the trial court failed to question a juror after credible evidence of discussions with an outsider.
The South Carolina Supreme Court held that a challenge to the authorized use of county bond proceeds was subject to section 11-15-30’s twenty-day filing deadline.
The South Carolina Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a lawyer who accepted title-policy fees but failed to issue the policy, respond to the client, or preserve the file.
The South Carolina Supreme Court held that the execution-secrecy statute does not cover public or nonconfidential identifying information and does not punish its later repetition.
The Court of Appeals affirmed across the board. The policy was not ambiguous merely because the endorsement used no special symbol next to the insured location or left the word “maintained” undefined. Read as a whole, the documents identified properties represented as fully sprinklered, and requiring a sprinkler system to be maintained in complete working order could not reasonably cover a system that had never been connected or made operational. Language covering additions under construction did not transform the unfinished sprinkler work into coverage for the destroyed building.
The South Carolina Court of Appeals held that USC did not promise face-to-face instruction and that students showed no recoverable damages from the spring 2020 move online.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. Under South Carolina law, transfer of the secured note carries the mortgage, so the master erred by finding Waterfall was the note holder but not the mortgage holder. The court also required reconsideration of the foreclosure demand and proper allocation of insurance proceeds under the record and contract. On remand, the court must consider interest, escrow charges, corporate advances, attorney’s fees, and the prior servicer’s possible application of proceeds to missed payments.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Carroll lacked a personal Fourth Amendment interest in the victim’s phone and therefore could not suppress evidence based on its search. The warrants concerning his own phone and the carrier records were supported by the investigation and, in any event, were executed in objectively reasonable reliance on judicial authorization. Sworn oral testimony could supplement a facially sparse affidavit, and the record supported application of the Leon good-faith doctrine.
The Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Orders granting or denying discovery are interlocutory and do not become immediately appealable merely because they arise in a post-divorce contempt proceeding. The panel expressly recognized the force of the husband’s argument and concern about inconsistent family-court practices, but precedent required review to wait until a final appealable order. A concurrence emphasized the need for eventual guidance on discovery in complex contempt matters.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the probate and circuit court orders with a modification to the fee award. The record supported rejection of the purported will, a finding that Hasian converted estate assets, and an award of litigation expenses under the Probate Code’s authority to allocate costs as justice and equity require. The court clarified the proper legal basis and scope of recoverable fees rather than treating every requested theory as interchangeable.
The Supreme Court accepted the agreement and suspended Brown for one year. The sanction reflected both the client-service violations and repeated failure to cooperate with the disciplinary system, considered alongside his prior discipline. Brown must comply with the rule governing suspended lawyers, pay disciplinary costs, and complete Ethics School within one year after reinstatement.
The Supreme Court accepted discipline by consent and imposed an eighteen-month definite suspension, retroactive to Gilchrist’s July 29, 2022 interim suspension. The court stressed the seriousness of financial dishonesty, misrepresentations, and her failure to self-report the indictment. Cooperation, repayment, and other mitigation did not reduce the sanction below the agreed range. She must also pay the investigation and prosecution costs.
The Supreme Court accepted the agreement and publicly reprimanded Compton. It found violations of the professional rules governing competence, diligence, communication, and related responsibilities. The court also required payment of disciplinary costs, an assessment through Lawyers Helping Lawyers with compliance with resulting recommendations, and completion of Ethics School within one year.
The Supreme Court accepted the agreement and imposed a definite six-month suspension. It treated the pattern and Owen’s disciplinary history as important aggravating considerations, while also considering the mitigating material submitted with the agreement. Owen must comply with the rule governing suspended lawyers, pay disciplinary costs, and complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School within one year.
The South Carolina Supreme Court held that due process permits the preponderance standard in a child-protection intervention and affirmed the abuse finding and Central Registry placement.
The South Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed a tax appeal because money placed in counsel’s IOLTA account and a personal surety did not satisfy the statutory pre-appeal payment or bond requirement.
The South Carolina Court of Appeals revived a constructive-trust theory based on an alleged promise not to use a testamentary power of appointment to alter a family company’s voting control.
The South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld lottery-winner privacy protections, signature redactions, and relief from FOIA requests requiring millions of dollars and thousands of staff hours.