Communication Concepts v. Controls for Automation

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: October 7, 2020
• Docket: 2017-002487
• Status: Unpublished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

Communication Concepts, Inc., Appellant,

v.

Controls for Automation, Inc. and Digital Management Solutions, Inc., Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2017-002487

Appeal From Greenville County Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-280 Submitted September 1, 2020 – Filed October 7, 2020

REVERSED

Burl F. Williams, of Burl F. Williams, P.A., and Konstantine Peter Diamaduros, both of Greenville, for Appellant.

PER CURIAM: Communication Concepts Incorporated (CCI) appeals the order of the Greenville County Circuit Court granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement with Controls for Automation (CFA) and Digital Management Solutions (DMS) and requiring CCI to purchase additional trailer(s) from DMS. On April 24, 2017, after the order at issue was appealed, the circuit court held a hearing on the damages owed to CFA by DMS. By this time, DMS had "shuttered its doors." The court awarded CFA damages of $138,585.16.

We reverse based on the respondents' failures to file briefs. See Rule 208(a)(4), SCACR ("Upon the failure of respondent to timely file a brief, the appellate court may take such action as it deems proper."); Turner v. Santee Cement Carriers, Inc., 277 S.C. 91, 96, 282 S.E.2d 858, 860 (1981) (finding a respondent's failure to file a brief "allows this [c]ourt to take such action upon the appeal as it deems proper. This failure alone would justify reversal . . . .").

REVERSED.1

THOMAS, HILL, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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