Martin v. Simmons

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: November 1, 2017
• Docket: 2017-UP-413
• Status: Unpublished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

Tiffany M. Martin, Appellant,

v.

Glenda Simmons, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-000335

Appeal From Horry County Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-413 Submitted October 1, 2017 – Filed November 1, 2017

AFFIRMED

Ralph James Wilson, Jr., of Ralph Wilson Law P.C., of Conway, for Appellant.

John Robert Murphy and Wesley Brian Sawyer, both of Murphy & Grantland, P.A., of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Holly Woods Ass'n of Residence Owners v. Hiller, 392 S.C. 172, 183- 84, 708 S.E.2d 787, 793 (Ct. App. 2011) (holding the three-year statute of limitations for negligence actions begins to run when the underlying cause of action should have been discovered); True v. Monteith, 327 S.C. 116, 119, 489 S.E.2d 615, 616 (1997) ("In a negligence action, the statute of limitations accrues at the time of the negligence or when the facts and circumstances would put a person of common knowledge on notice that there might be a claim against another party."); Tanyel v. Osborne, 312 S.C. 473, 475, 441 S.E.2d 329, 330 (Ct. App. 1994) ("The statute of limitations . . . begins to run when the plaintiff should know that he might have a potential claim against another person, not when the plaintiff develops a full-blown theory of recovery."); Holly Woods Ass'n, 392 S.C. at 183- 84, 708 S.E.2d at 793 ("[The] court must determine 'whether the circumstances of the case would put a person of common knowledge and experience on notice that some right of his has been invaded, or that some claim against another party might exist.'" (quoting Young v. S.C. Dep't of Corrs., 333 S.C. 714, 719, 511 S.E.2d 413, 416 (Ct. App. 1999))).1

AFFIRMED.2

LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and HILL, JJ., concur.

1 Appellant's argument regarding equitable tolling is not preserved. See South Carolina Dept. of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007) ("[A]n issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review." (quoting Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998))). 2 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.