Davis-Daniels v. The Pines Apartments, L.P.

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: March 5, 2009
• Docket: 2009-UP-125
• Status: Unpublished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

Terra Davis-Daniels, Respondent,

v.

The Pines Apartments, L.P. and C.L. Holding d/b/a The Pines Apartments a/k/a Colony East Apartments a/k/a Hunter's Way a/k/a Pinnacle a/k/a Pines at Forest Lake, Defendants,/Of Whom C.L. Holding is the Appellant.

---

Appeal From Richland County
 G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-125
Submitted March 2, 2009 – Filed March 5, 2009

---

AFFIRMED

---

Karl S. Brehmer and L. Darby Plexico, III, both of Columbia, for Appellant.

William R. Padget and Harry L. Goldberg, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: The Pines Apartments, L.P. and C.L. Holding appeal the circuit court’s grant of an amendment of judgment allowing a default judgment to be amended to reflect C.L. Holdings, LLC as the proper name of C.L. Holding. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 60(a), SCRCP (“Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders.”); Tri-County Ice and Fuel Co. v. Palmetto Ice Co., 303 S.C. 237, 241, 399 S.E.2d 779, 782 (1990) (“[W]here a defendant sued by a wrong name omits to plead in abatement and suffers the plaintiff to proceed to judgment, though he has never appeared to the wrong name, this [c]ourt will not interfere to set aside the proceedings.”); Tunstall v. The Lerner Shops, Inc., 160 S.C. 557, 563, 159 S.E. 386, 388 (1931) (noting a mere misnomer of corporation defendant “is immaterial if it appears that it could not have been, or was not misled”).

AFFIRMED.

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

---

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