Graham v. Babb

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

Carey Graham
and Rodney A. Chardukan, Respondents,

v.

Malcolm M.
Babb, Brenda M. Babb, Cable Plus of Carolina, Inc., South Bay Lakes Cable
Partnership, Southbridge Cable Television, LLC, and Renaissance Enterprises,
Inc., now known as Condo Services, Inc., Defendants,

Of Whom Brenda
M. Babb and Renaissance Enterprises, Inc., now known as Condo Services, Inc.,
are Appellants.

Appeal From Horry County

J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.   2010-UP-298

Submitted April 1, 2010 – Filed June 1, 2010

AFFIRMED

Brenda Babb, of Calabash, NC, pro se,
and William Diggs, of Myrtle Beach, for Appellants.

Frank H. Durant, of Myrtle Beach, for
Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  This appeal stems from the trial court's imposition of
discovery-related sanctions on the Appellants.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1. As to whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding sanctions
against the Appellants: Rule 37(b)(2)(C), SCRCP (providing that when a party
fails to comply with a discovery order, the trial court has the discretion to
impose any sanction it deems just, including the dismissal of an action); Barnette
v. Adams Bros. Logging, Inc., 355 S.C. 588, 593, 586 S.E.2d 572, 575 (2003)
(holding the trial court's imposition of discovery sanctions will not be
reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, and the party appealing from
the order of sanction carries the burden of proving an abuse of discretion
occurred); McNair v. Fairfield County, 379 S.C. 462, 466, 665 S.E.2d
830, 832 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding sanctions resulting in the dismissal of an
action "should only be imposed in cases involving bad faith, willful disobedience,
or gross indifference to the opposing party's rights"); Griffin Grading
& Clearing, Inc. v. Tire Service Equip. Mfg. Co., 334 S.C. 193, 199,
511 S.E.2d 716, 719 (Ct. App. 1999) ("In determining the appropriateness
of a sanction, the court should consider such factors as the precise nature of
the discovery and the discovery posture of the case, willfulness, and degree of
prejudice."). 

2. As to whether the
trial court erred in considering documents from a prior factually-related
action: Dixon v. Dixon, 362 S.C. 388, 399, 608 S.E.2d 849, 854 (2005)
(providing an issue first raised in a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion is not
preserved on appeal); Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d
731, 733 (1998) (holding an issue must be raised to and ruled on by the
trial court in order to be preserved on appeal).    

3. As to whether the trial court erred in
awarding $6,000 in attorney's fees to the Respondents: Rule 37(b), SCRCP
(allowing sanctions, including the award of attorney's fees, for discovery
violations); Seabrook Island Property Owners' Ass'n v. Berger, 365 S.C.
234, 240, 616 S.E.2d 431, 434-35 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding an award of
attorney's fees will be affirmed on appeal when sufficient evidence in the
record supports each of the following factors: (1) nature,
extent, and difficulty of the legal services rendered; (2) time and labor
devoted to the case; (3) professional standing of counsel; (4) contingency of
compensation; (5) fee customarily charged in the locality for similar services;
and (6) beneficial results obtained).

AFFIRMED.  

FEW, C.J., SHORT,
and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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