Perpetual Bank v. Fedder

• Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Decided: June 28, 2004
• Docket: 2004-MO-031
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Perpetual Bank v. Fedder

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 Supreme Court

Perpetual Bank, FSB,        Respondent,

v.

W. Jerry Fedder, William F. Derrick, Earle W. Mimms, Jr., Carol G. Black, Barbara G. Goodwin, Peter A. Goodwin, John R. Goodwin, Patricia G. Travis, and Paula G. Williams, all individually and in their partnership capacity, and Hardees Food Systems, Inc, Defendants,

of whom W. Jerry Fedder, William F. Derrick, Earle W. Mimms, Jr., Carol G. Black, Barbara G. Goodwin, Peter A. Goodwin, John R. Goodwin, Patricia G. Travis, and Paula G. Williams, all individually and in their partnership capacity are,        Appellants.

---

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

---

Memorandum Opinion No. 2004-MO-031
Heard June 9, 2004 - Filed June 28, 2004

---

AFFIRMED

---

Bradley A. Norton and Julie E. Mahon, both of Fedder, Norton, Ballenger & Enderlin, P.A., of Walhalla, for Appellants.

Rivers Lawton McIntosh, of McIntosh, Sherard & Sullivan, of Anderson, for Respondent.

---

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Issue 1: Sauner v. Pub. Serv. Auth. of South Carolina, 354 S.C. 397, 409, 581 S.E.2d 161, 167 (2003) (to recover on a theory of restitution or quasi-contract, the plaintiff must show: (1) that he conferred a non-gratuitous benefit on the defendant; (2) that the defendant realized some value from the benefit; and (3) that it would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying the plaintiff for its value); Issue 2: Duckworth v. First Nat. Bank, 254 S.C. 563, 576, 176 S.E.2d 297, 304 (1970) (a defendant is unjustly enriched if the retention of the benefit would be unjust); Issue 3: Hunt v. Forestry Com’m, __ S.C. __, 595 S.E.2d 846, 851 (Ct. App. 2004) (issues raised in a brief but not supported by authority are deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal); Issue 4: Steinke v. South Carolina Dept. of Lab., Licensing and Reg., 336 S.C. 373, 386, 520 S.E.2d 142, 148 (1999) (a motion for directed verdict is properly denied where the evidence yields more than one inference or the inference is in doubt); Pitts v. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co., 352 S.C. 319, 339, 574 S.E.2d 502, 512 (Ct. App. 2002) (in equity, the measure of recovery is the extent of the duty or obligation imposed by law, and is expressed by the amount which the court considers the defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the plaintiff).

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.