Carter v. McFadyen

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: March 5, 2009
• Docket: 2009-UP-128
• Status: Unpublished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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Case No. 2006-CP-23-1718

James Carter, Appellant,

v.

Margaret M. McFadyen, Respondent,

---

Case No. 2006-CP-23-1989

John Gregory Askew, Plaintiff,

Margaret M. McFadyen and James Carter, Defendant.

---

Appeal From Greenville County
 Charles B. Simmons, Jr., Master-in-Equity

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-128
Submitted March 2, 2009 – Filed March 5, 2009   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Thomas Elihue Dudley, III, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Stanley E. Mcleod, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: James Carter appeals the master-in-equity’s grant of summary judgment, arguing evidence existed establishing there was a valid, enforceable contract for the sale of real property.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Helms Realty Inc. v. Gibson-Wall Co., 363 S.C. 334, 340, 611 S.E.2d 485, 488 (2005) (explaining pursuant to Rule 56(c), SCRCP, summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law); Willis v. Wu., 362 S.C. 146, 151, 607 S.E.2d 63, 65 (2004) (stating on appeal from an order granting summary judgment, the appellate court will review all ambiguities, conclusions, and inferences arising in and from the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party below); S.C. Code Ann. § 32-3-10(4) (2007) (stating any contract for an interest in land must be in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought); Player v. Chandler, 299 S.C. 101, 106, 382 S.E.2d 891, 894 (1989) (holding failure to put contract for the sale of land in writing renders it void, unless an exception applies).

AFFIRMED. 

SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

---

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