Quick v. Hunsucker

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Quick v. Hunsucker

DecidedAugust 22, 2005

Docket2005-UP-498

StatusUnpublished

This text of Quick v. Hunsucker (Quick v. Hunsucker) 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

Quick v. Hunsucker, (S.C. Ct. App. 2005).

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Floyd Quick, a/k/a Naim Salahudeen, Appellant,

v.

Wilbur C. Hunsucker, Respondent.

Appeal From Marlboro County
James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-498
Submitted August 1, 2005 Filed August 22, 2005

AFFIRMED

Floyd Quick, of Bennettsville, pro se Appellant.

Harry Easterling, of Bennettsville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Floyd Quick appeals the trial courts denial of his request to amend his complaint in a property dispute over an undefined easement. Quick also claims the trial court erred in granting Wilbur Hunsucker summary judgment. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Issue I: Rule 15, SCRCP; Crowley v. Spivey, 285 S.C. 397, 329 S.E.2d 774 (Ct. App. 1985) (upholding the trial courts ruling on a motion to amend absent an abuse of discretion and noting evidence of circumstances such as inexcusable delay, surprise to the adverse party, or the like will justify the denial of a motion to amend). Issue II: Morrow v. Dyches, 328 S.C. 522, 529, 492 S.E.2d 420, 424 (Ct. App. 1997) (holding the elements required to prove an easement by necessity are unity of title, severance of title, and necessity); Dyer v. Moss, 284 S.C. 208, 325 S.E.2d 69 (Ct. App. 1985) (stating when a plaintiff is faced with a defendants motion for summary judgment that is supported by evidence, the plaintiff cannot defeat the motion by relying upon the mere allegations of his complaint, but must disclose the facts he intends to rely on by affidavit or other proof.).

AFFIRMED.[1]

GOOLSBY, BEATTY, and SHORT, JJ., concur.

[1] 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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Floyd Quick, a/k/a Naim Salahudeen, Appellant,

v.

Wilbur C. Hunsucker, Respondent.

Appeal From Marlboro County
James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-498
Submitted August 1, 2005 Filed August 22, 2005

AFFIRMED

Floyd Quick, of Bennettsville, pro se Appellant.

Harry Easterling, of Bennettsville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Floyd Quick appeals the trial courts denial of his request to amend his complaint in a property dispute over an undefined easement. Quick also claims the trial court erred in granting Wilbur Hunsucker summary judgment. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Issue I: Rule 15, SCRCP; Crowley v. Spivey, 285 S.C. 397, 329 S.E.2d 774 (Ct. App. 1985) (upholding the trial courts ruling on a motion to amend absent an abuse of discretion and noting evidence of circumstances such as inexcusable delay, surprise to the adverse party, or the like will justify the denial of a motion to amend). Issue II: Morrow v. Dyches, 328 S.C. 522, 529, 492 S.E.2d 420, 424 (Ct. App. 1997) (holding the elements required to prove an easement by necessity are unity of title, severance of title, and necessity); Dyer v. Moss, 284 S.C. 208, 325 S.E.2d 69 (Ct. App. 1985) (stating when a plaintiff is faced with a defendants motion for summary judgment that is supported by evidence, the plaintiff cannot defeat the motion by relying upon the mere allegations of his complaint, but must disclose the facts he intends to rely on by affidavit or other proof.).

AFFIRMED.[1]

GOOLSBY, BEATTY, and SHORT, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Quick v. Hunsucker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quick-v-hunsucker-scctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack