Myers v. Christensen

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

Jerome Myers and Gloria Myers, Appellants,

v.

Dennis J. Christensen, Shelly K. All, Cezar E. McKnight,
Sgt. Donald Daquigan, Elizabeth Spencer-Elderly
Support Unit, Willie O.W. McFadden-Myers, and
Latonya Hobson, Defendants,

Of whom Shelly K. All, Cezar E. McKnight, Willie O.W.
McFadden-Myers, and Latonya Hobson are the
Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000371

Appeal From Charleston County
R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-226
Submitted April 1, 2016 – Filed June 1, 2016

AFFIRMED

Jerome Myers and Gloria Myers, both of North
Charleston, pro se.
Cezar Edward McKnight, of the Law Office of Cezar E.
McKnight, LLC, of Lake City, for Respondent Cezar
Edward McKnight, Respondent Willie O.W. McFadden-
Myers, and Respondent Latonya Hobson; Shelly
Kuzminsky All, of Dennis J. Christensen, P.A., of Mount
Pleasant, pro se.

PER CURIAM: Appellants Jerome Myers and Gloria Myers appeal the circuit
court's order dismissing their case based on the statute of limitations, arguing the
circuit court erred in (1) failing to allow them to be heard at the reconsideration
hearing concerning when the statute of limitations should have begun to run so that
equitable tolling could have been applied, (2) allowing attorney Cezar McKnight to
continue to represent his clients, who were co-defendants in the action, (3) failing
to apply the law of the case doctrine when two prior judges scheduled the case for
a jury trial, (4) failing to allow Appellants to raise their issues below, and (5)
failing to hold the twenty-year statute of limitations for real estate instruments
applied. Appellants also ask this court to apply the clean hands doctrine. We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to Issue 1: BPS, Inc. v. Worthy, 362 S.C. 319, 324, 608 S.E.2d 155, 158 (Ct.
App. 2005) ("When reviewing the grant of a summary judgment motion, the
appellate court applies the same standard which governs the trial court under Rule
56(c), SCRCP: summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.");
id. at 325, 608 S.E.2d at 158 ("In determining whether any triable issue of fact
exists, the evidence and all inferences which can reasonably be drawn therefrom
must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party."); id. at 325,
608 S.E.2d at 159 ("Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."); Moore v.
Benson, 390 S.C. 153, 161, 700 S.E.2d 273, 277 (Ct. App. 2010) ("According to
the discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run when a person could or
should have known, through the exercise of reasonable diligence that a cause of
action might exist.").1

2. As to Appellants' remaining issues: See Herron v. Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461,
465, 719 S.E.2d 640, 642 (2011) (stating issues must be raised to and ruled upon
by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.2

SHORT and THOMAS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

1
We note any issue concerning the applicability of the doctrine of equitable tolling
is unpreserved. See Laser Supply & Servs., Inc. v. Orchard Park Assocs., 382 S.C.
326, 336 n.5, 676 S.E.2d 139, 145 n.5 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating an issue neither
directly addressed in the circuit court's order nor raised in a motion for
reconsideration is unpreserved).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.