A & B Associates v. FCRE REL, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: April 17, 2019
• Docket: 2019-UP-144
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

A & B Associates, L.P., Respondent,

v.

FCRE REL, LLC, and Tideland Realty, Inc., Defendants,

of Whom FCRE REL, LLC is the Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001899

Appeal From Beaufort County Marvin H. Dukes, III, Special Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-144 Submitted February 1, 2019 – Filed April 17, 2019

AFFIRMED

Benjamin Terrell Coppage, of Coppage Law Firm, LLC, of Beaufort, for Appellant.

Curtis Lee Coltrane, of Coltrane & Wilkins, LLC, of Hilton Head Island, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Strategic Res. Co. v. BCS Life Ins. Co., 367 S.C. 540, 544, 627 S.E.2d 687, 689 (2006) ("The power of the court to grant an injunction is in equity."); Gilley v. Gilley, 327 S.C. 8, 11–12, 488 S.E.2d 310, 312 (1997) (explaining the grant or denial of an injunction by the trial court will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion); Hampton v. Haley, 403 S.C. 395, 409, 743 S.E.2d 258, 265 (2013) (stating an injunction is a drastic and extraordinary equitable remedy courts may use in their discretion in order to prevent irreparable harm to a party where no adequate remedy exists at law); Peek v. Spartanburg Reg'l Healthcare Sys., 367 S.C. 450, 454, 626 S.E.2d 34, 36 (2005) ("To obtain an injunction, the plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for an injunction and demonstrate the injunction is reasonably necessary to protect the legal rights pending in the litigation."); id. at 454–55, 626 S.E.2d at 36 ("To establish a cause of action for injunction, the plaintiff must show '(1) it would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (2) it will likely succeed on the merits of the litigation; and (3) there is an inadequate remedy at law.'" (quoting Scratch Golf Co. v. Dunes W. Residential Golf Props., Inc., 361 S.C. 117, 121, 603 S.E.2d 905, 908 (2004))); Miller v. Miller, 375 S.C. 443, 457, 652 S.E.2d 754, 761 (Ct. App. 2007) ("Civil contempt must be proved by clear and convincing evidence."); State v. Bevilacqua, 316 S.C. 122, 129, 447 S.E.2d 213, 217 (Ct. App. 1994) ("A determination of contempt ordinarily resides in the sound discretion of the trial [court].").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.