Panther v. Catto Enterprises

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: April 30, 2003
• Docket: 2003-UP-293
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Joseph H. Panther,        Appellant,

v.

Catto Enterprises, Inc.,        Respondent.

---

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

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-293
Submitted April 7, 2003 - Filed April 30, 2003

---

AFFIRMED

---

H. Michael Spivey, of Mauldin, for Appellant

Michael N. Duncan, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

---

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: As to issue I: Whetstone v. Whetstone, 309 S.C. 227, 231-32, 420 S.E.2d 877, 879 (Ct. App. 1992) (holding, “to prove the existence of a trust [for realty], the law requires . . . a [written] declaration creating the trust”).

As to issues II & V: Rule 207(D), SCACR (stating the argument portion of a brief must include citations to authority); see Parks v. Morris Homes Corp., 245 S.C. 461, 471, 141 S.E.2d 129, 134 (1965) (holding where “no . . . authority [is] cited to sustain the exception, it is properly considered abandoned [on appeal]”).

As to issue III: Weil v. Weil, 299 S.C. 84, 89, 382 S.E.2d 471, 473 (Ct. App. 1989) (defining dicta is “an expression or statement by the court on a matter not . . . necessary to a decision thereof”); In re Thames, 344 S.C. 564, 572-73, 544 S.E.2d 854, 858 (Ct. App. 2001) (indicating where the trial court’s order makes reference to matters that are irrelevant to the court’s decision, the matter is considered dicta and may be ignored); cf. City of Spartanburg v. Parris, 251 S.C. 187, 191-92, 161 S.E.2d 228, 230 (1968) (“[Because] the decision of the circuit court did not turn on the sufficiency of the evidence, the statements in the order appealed from concerning the degree of proof required and the burden of proof before the Commission are obiter dictum, and the exceptions thereto raise no issues for decision by [this Court].”).

As to issue IV: Fields v. Melrose Ltd. P’ship, 312 S.C. 102, 106, 439 S.E.2d 283, 285 (Ct. App. 1993) (holding an issue is deemed abandoned, and thus, not preserved for appellate review if argued in a short, conclusory statement without supporting authority).

AFFIRMED.¹

STILWELL, HOWARD, JJ., and STROM, Acting Judge, concur.

---

¹ Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.