Ronald Soles v. Jason Brockman

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

Ronald Soles, Respondent,

v.

Ioan Gherman d/b/a USA Auto Transport LLC and Jason
Brockman d/b/a JNJ Transport, LLC, Defendants,

Of whom Jason Brockman d/b/a JNJ Transport, LLC is
the Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2023-000294

Appeal From Greenville County
Bentley Price, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-421
Submitted October 1, 2024 – Filed December 18, 2024

AFFIRMED

Ward Benjamin McClain, Jr., of W. Benjamin McClain,
Jr., LLC, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Ronald Soles, of Florida, pro se.

PER CURIAM: Jason Brockman d/b/a JNJ Transportation, LLC (Brockman)
appeals orders of the circuit court, arguing the court erred in denying his motion
for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to Ronald Soles; denying
his motion for reconsideration; denying his motion for a new trial or to,
alternatively, amend the order; and awarding contempt sanctions against him. We
affirm.

1. We hold the circuit court did not err in granting Soles summary judgment. See
Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing that summary judgment is proper when "there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law"). Preliminarily, Brockman's contention that there are
issues of fact is unavailing because Brockman filed a cross motion for summary
judgment seeking judgment on the law in his favor, which he argued at the hearing.
Thus, he is foreclosed from raising issues of fact at this stage. See Byrd as Next
Friend of Julia B. v. McLeod Physician Assocs. II, 427 S.C. 407, 418, 831 S.E.2d
152, 157 (Ct. App. 2019) (providing that "a party cannot argue one ground at trial
then another ground on appeal" (quoting State v. McCray, 332 S.C. 536, 542, 506
S.E.2d 301, 303 (1998))). Moreover, we find no genuine issue of material fact
exists as to the contract's existence and whether the parties complied with its terms.
From our review, the record clearly shows Brockman's failure to comply with the
terms of the contract. Although Brockman asserts Soles altered the contract by
failing to be present for the delivery, this was not prohibited under the contract.
Further, Brockman failed to present sufficient evidence of an alteration to the
contract allowing for him to collect payment in advance of delivery. Rather, in his
answer, Brockman admits "payment was demanded prior to delivery of the vehicle
to the Plaintiff after Plaintiff sent text messages to Defendant that he would not be
present at pickup." The contract permitted Soles to send a designee to receive
delivery of the vehicle, and the contract clearly states, "The total fee is due in two
installments, . . . the balance [is] due when your Vehicle is delivered (the
"Remaining Balance"). . . . The Remaining Balance and any additional charges
incurred in accordance with this Agreement must be paid in full . . . directly to the
Carrier upon delivery of your Vehicle." (emphases added). Therefore, summary
judgment was proper. See Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing that summary judgment
is proper when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law"); McMaster v. Dewitt,
411 S.C. 138, 143, 767 S.E.2d 451, 453–54 (Ct. App. 2014) ("[I]t is not sufficient
for a party to create an inference that is not reasonable or an issue of fact that is not
genuine." (quoting Town of Hollywood v. Floyd, 403 S.C. 466, 477, 744 S.E.2d
161, 166 (2013))).

2. We hold the circuit court did not err in denying Brockman's motions to
reconsider. Brockman first asserts the circuit court erred in denying his motion to
reconsider by order dated February 28, 2023. In his appellate brief, Brockman
conflates the arguments he made in his motions. On appeal, Brockman focuses on
the newly discovered evidence of the vehicle's title; however, the February 28,
2023 order and Brockman's corresponding motion focused on whether Brockman
was an appropriate party under Rule 17(a) and whether he was entitled to storage
fees. Therefore, we find any contentions as to the February 28, 2023 order lack
merit. Next, Brockman argues the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a
new trial or to, alternatively, amend the judgment due to newly discovered
evidence. Brockman maintains Soles lacked standing to bring the breach of
contract action because he was not the owner of the vehicle at issue. In
considering Brockman's subsequent motions, the circuit court found the motions
were frivolous attempts to delay resolving the case. We agree. Brockman could
have raised the issue of ownership of the vehicle at any point prior to his
successive 59(e) motion. He failed to do so. Thus, we hold the circuit court
properly declined to grant relief.1 See Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v. City of
Columbia, 409 S.C. 563, 567, 762 S.E.2d 693, 695 (2014) ("[A] party cannot use a
Rule 59(e) motion to advance an issue the party could have raised to the circuit
court prior to judgment, but did not.").

3. We affirm the circuit court's finding of contempt and issuance of sanctions
against Brockman. "An issue is deemed abandoned and will not be considered on
appeal if the argument is raised in a brief but not supported by authority." Mead v.
Beaufort Cnty. Assessor, 419 S.C. 125, 139, 796 S.E.2d 165, 172 (Ct. App. 2016)
(quoting Bryson v. Bryson, 378 S.C. 502, 510, 662 S.E.2d 611, 615 (Ct. App.
2008)). In his appellate brief, Brockman merely makes conclusory statements
without any supporting authority. See id. at 139, 796 S.E.2d at 172–73 ("When an
appellant provides no legal authority regarding a particular argument, the argument
is abandoned and the court can decline to address the merits of the issue.").

AFFIRMED. 2

WILLIAMS, C.J., and MCDONALD and TURNER, JJ., concur.

1
We decline to address Brockman's motion to set surety as our findings on the
remaining motions are dispositive. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of
Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding an
appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of a prior
issue is dispositive of the appeal).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.