Machelle Smith v. Columbia Sussex Corporation

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Machelle Smith v. Columbia Sussex Corporation

DecidedAugust 10, 2022

Docket2019-002099

StatusUnpublished

This text of Machelle Smith v. Columbia Sussex Corporation (Machelle Smith v. Columbia Sussex Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Machelle Smith v. Columbia Sussex Corporation, (S.C. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

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

Machelle Smith, Appellant,

v.

Columbia Sussex Corporation d/b/a Hilton Head Marriott Resorts & Spa; Columbia Sussex Management, LLC; and Columbia Properties Hilton Head, LLC, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2019-002099

Appeal From Beaufort County J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-328 Submitted July 28, 2022 – Filed August 10, 2022

AFFIRMED

John Elliott Parker, Jr., of Parker Law Group, LLP, of Hampton, for Appellant.

Christian Stegmaier, of Collins & Lacy, PC, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Machelle Smith appeals the circuit court's grant of Hilton Head Marriot Resort and Spa's (the Resort's) motion for summary judgment, arguing the circuit court erred by finding (1) the Resort was entitled to immunity from liability under the Innkeeper's Statute1 and (2) the Resort could not be held liable for the acts of its employee. We affirm.

Because Smith raised her argument opposing the Resort's claim of immunity under the Innkeeper's Statute for the first time in her motion to alter or amend the circuit court's order, we find this argument is not preserved for appellate review. See Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v. City of Columbia, 409 S.C. 563, 567, 762 S.E.2d 693, 695 (2014) ("[A] party cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion to advance an issue the party could have raised to the circuit court prior to judgment, but did not."); id. (declining to decide an issue raised for the first time in a Rule 59(e) motion).

Because this finding is dispositive, we decline to decide Smith's remaining issue. See Earthscapes Unlimited, Inc. v. Ulbrich, 390 S.C. 609, 617, 703 S.E.2d 221, 225 (2010) ("[W]hen disposition of a prior issue is dispositive, an analysis of the remaining issues i[s] unnecessary.").

AFFIRMED. 2

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

1 S.C. Code Ann. § 45-1-40 (2017). 2 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

Machelle Smith, Appellant,

v.

Columbia Sussex Corporation d/b/a Hilton Head Marriott Resorts & Spa; Columbia Sussex Management, LLC; and Columbia Properties Hilton Head, LLC, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2019-002099

Appeal From Beaufort County J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-328 Submitted July 28, 2022 – Filed August 10, 2022

AFFIRMED

John Elliott Parker, Jr., of Parker Law Group, LLP, of Hampton, for Appellant.

Christian Stegmaier, of Collins & Lacy, PC, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Machelle Smith appeals the circuit court's grant of Hilton Head Marriot Resort and Spa's (the Resort's) motion for summary judgment, arguing the circuit court erred by finding (1) the Resort was entitled to immunity from liability under the Innkeeper's Statute1 and (2) the Resort could not be held liable for the acts of its employee. We affirm.

Because Smith raised her argument opposing the Resort's claim of immunity under the Innkeeper's Statute for the first time in her motion to alter or amend the circuit court's order, we find this argument is not preserved for appellate review. See Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v. City of Columbia, 409 S.C. 563, 567, 762 S.E.2d 693, 695 (2014) ("[A] party cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion to advance an issue the party could have raised to the circuit court prior to judgment, but did not."); id. (declining to decide an issue raised for the first time in a Rule 59(e) motion).

Because this finding is dispositive, we decline to decide Smith's remaining issue. See Earthscapes Unlimited, Inc. v. Ulbrich, 390 S.C. 609, 617, 703 S.E.2d 221, 225 (2010) ("[W]hen disposition of a prior issue is dispositive, an analysis of the remaining issues i[s] unnecessary.").

AFFIRMED. 2

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

1 S.C. Code Ann. § 45-1-40 (2017). 2 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Machelle Smith v. Columbia Sussex Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/machelle-smith-v-columbia-sussex-corporation-scctapp-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack